Stoner v. City Council of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Chas. S. Burnell, and Haas, Garrett & Dunnigan, for Appellants. Leslie R. Hewitt, City Attorney, and E. R Young, Deputy, and Howard Robertson, Deputy, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
This proceeding was instituted in the superior court of Los Angeles county to obtain a writ of review directed to the city council of the city of Los Angeles.
The controversy grows out of the opening of Grand avenue from Temple street to California street, the proceedings for the opening of which were had and taken under the street opening act of 1903. (Stats. 1903, p. 376.) It appears from the verified petition that appellants are the owners of lots and lands located within the district established by said council as being benefited by the opening of said street, and upon which the cost of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- City of Pasadena v. StimsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- People v. PotterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Reynolds v. County Court of San Joaquin CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Bituminous Lime Rock Paving & Improvement Co. v. FultonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Rauer v. Justices' CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Estrin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Watkinson v. VaughnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Burlingame v. Justice's CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- Bayside Land Co. v. DolleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Farley v. ReindollarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.