Legal Opinion

Sher v. Leiderman

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 29, 1986No. H000859PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BRAUER, J.

Rudolph and Bonnie Sher appeal from a judgment against them in favor of P. Herbert and Gloria Leiderman following a court trial. Their appeal presents an issue of first impression in this state, namely, whether an owner of a residence designed to make use of solar energy can state a cause of action for private nuisance when trees on his neighbor’s property interfere with his solar access. We determine that California nuisance law does not provide a remedy for blockage of sunlight, and, for reasons discussed below, we decline to expand existing law.

The Shers’ appeal also…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Crisci v. Security InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1992
  2. East Peninsula Education Council, Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  3. Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  4. Zipperer v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  5. Wilson v. HandleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002

7 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