Legal Opinion
Treweek v. City of Napa
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 4, 2000No. A087820PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KLINE, P. J.
Introduction
“An object is what it is.” So stated the Court of Appeal in Farnham v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 720], waiving aside concerns that its broad definition of “trail” under Government Code section 831.4, 1 would result in expansion of the term beyond recognition, providing a governmental entity “the incentive to call anything it wishes a ‘trail’ in order to qualify for section 831.4 immunity.” (68 Cal.App.4th at p. 1103.) Here, we are confronted with the question whether a public boat dock ramp is unquestionably a “trail,”…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Lazar v. Hertz Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1999
- Boccato v. City of Hermosa BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Armenio v. County of San MateoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Giannuzzi v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Carroll v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Fire Insurance Exchange v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- AMBERGER-WARREN v. City of PiedmontCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Burgueno v. Regents of the University of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Montenegro v. City of BradburyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Arvizu v. City of Pasadena, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.