Legal Opinion

Bess v. County of Humboldt

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 28, 1992No. A052111PublishedCited by 6 opinions

[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

STEIN, J.

The instant action involves the rights of the public (1) to use the Van Duzen River as it flows through property owned by Thomas L. and Carol Bess (the Besses), and (2) to obtain access to the river across the Besses’ property. The trial court found that the Van Duzen River is navigable and thus that “the State owns in fee simple, in trust for the public, the bed of the Van Duzen River to the river’s ordinary low water marks.” The court further found that the “State also owns, in trust for the public, an easement for navigation, commerce, fishing and recreation over the bed of…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Gion v. City of Santa CruzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Union Transportation Co. v. Sacramento CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  3. State of California v. Superior Court (Lyon)California Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Naylor v. CoxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
  5. City of Manhattan Beach v. CortelyouCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Redwood Empire v. GombosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  2. Friends of the Hastain Trail v. Coldwater Development LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  3. Don H. Gunderson v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2016
  4. Friends of the Hastain Trail v. Coldwater Development LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  5. Glass v. GoeckelMichigan Supreme Court · 2005

1 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