Herzberg v. County of Plumas
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.
Upset because their neighbor’s cattle come onto their property, eating the vegetation, defecating, and trampling the ground and sensitive creek beds, plaintiffs sued their neighbors (the Wemples), the County of Plumas, and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Plumas (County) for trespass, nuisance, injunctive relief, taxpayer relief, declaratory relief, inverse condemnation, violation of civil rights and preemption by state law. Only plaintiffs’ action against the County is at issue in this appeal. On appeal plaintiffs claim the trial court erred in entering…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Shaw v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, LondonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Allegretti & Co. v. County of ImperialCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Department of Fish & Game v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Stardust Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of San BuenaventuraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.