Legal Opinion

Katenkamp v. Union Realty Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 18, 1940No. Civ. 11781; Civ. 11783PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWhite, J.

The two actions forming the basis of this appeal involve the construction by defendant of two groins into the water fronting its properties upon the westerly arm of Miramar Bay in Santa Barbara County. Defendants’ real property is situated just east of the city of Santa Barbara, consisting of approximately 1200 feet fronting the Pacific Ocean. Plaintiffs’ properties also border on the Pacific Ocean and are situated east of defendant’s property. Two groins are here involved, one known as the easterly groin, which is 300 feet long, and one known as the westerly groin having a length of 190…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Tupman v. HaberkernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. See v. North American Accident InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Barham v. WidingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Lamb v. Reclamation District No. 108California Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Ryder v. BambergerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Frustuck v. City of FairfaxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  2. Vaccarezza v. SanguinettiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  3. Hilyar v. Union Ice Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Leblanc v. GrilloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1942
  5. Spolter v. Four-Wheel Brake Service Co.California Court of Appeal · 1950

20 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