East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Kieffer
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion
THE COURT.
The appellant has filed a petition for a rehearing.
It is again urged that physical contiguity of different parcels of land is not necessary to entitle the owner in a condemnation proceeding to severance damages and that the statement to the contrary in Oakland v. Pacific Coast Lumber & Mill Co., 171 Cal. 392, 399 [153 Pac. 705], is dictum. The appellant in that case had insisted in the trial court “that the physical separation was negligible because unity of use and not physical contiguity was the controlling factor.” The trial court held adversely to this contention. In affirming…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Union Pacific Railroad v. Mason City & Fort Dodge RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- People v. FerdinandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- People v. WeberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- City of Oakland v. Pacific Coast Lumber & Mill Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- People v. MacDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.