Legal Opinion

East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Kieffer

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 29, 1929No. Docket Nos. 3480, 3481 and 3482Published

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

  1. Union Pacific Railroad v. Mason City & Fort Dodge RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  2. People v. FerdinandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  3. People v. WeberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  4. City of Oakland v. Pacific Coast Lumber & Mill Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  5. People v. MacDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914

6 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