Legal Opinion

City of Oakland v. Pacific Coast Lumber & Mill Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1915No. S. F. No. 6250PublishedCited by 88 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

This is an action in eminent domain. The jury’s award of damages was not acceptable to defendant, which appeals. Its principal complaint upon appeal is that the trial court mistook the law controlling appellant’s right to compensation; that this mistake was carried through the rulings of the court in its refusal to receive offered evidence and in its instructions to the jury. But before approaching this consideration one minor matter invites attention.

Upon voir dire it was shown that one of the jurymen was a resident and taxpayer within the city of Oakland. Defendant ’s challenge to this…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Vallejo & Northern R.R. v. Reed Orchard Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Eachus v. Los Angeles Consolidated Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Sacramento Etc. R.R. Co. v. HeilbronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Meyer v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Higgins v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by88 opinions

  1. Joslin Manufacturing Co. v. City of ProvidenceSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. People v. RicciardiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Bagdasarian v. GragnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  4. People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Breidert v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1964

83 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API