Zunino v. Gabriel
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
GOOD, J. pro tem. *
Plaintiffs, respondents, herein, recovered judgment against defendants Gabriel and Simpkins, appellants, decreeing that plaintiffs are the owners of an easement for road purposes, 20 feet in width and traversing properties of defendants and enjoining them from interfering with its use. The respondents were the owners of the northern portion of Lot 35 as shown on Burgess’ Map Number 1, MaeDonough Subdivision, in Walnut Creek. Appellant Gabriel owned the adjacent Lot 24 which he subdivided and Simpkins became the owner of one of the subdivided lots. Respondents went into…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Hocking v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1951
- Bartholomew v. StaheliCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Corea v. HigueraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Leonard v. FallasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Zimmer v. DykstraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- County of Los Angeles v. BartlettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Loudenslager v. MostellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Johnstone v. BettencourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Serrano v. GrissomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.