Legal Opinion

Garrett v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided April 17, 1974No. L.A. 30242PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BURKE, J.

In this case we determine whether real party in interest, Riverside County Hood Control and Water Conservation District (District) is a “local agency” under Code of Civil Procedure section 394, 1 per- taming to motions for change of venue. We hold that District is a local agency and consequently that petitioners (Owners) are entitled, under section 394, to change of venue "as a matter of right. 2

In July 1973 District filed a complaint in eminent domain to acquire the property of Owners in order to construct a storm control channel. Owners moved to transfer venue to a neutral…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hall v. City of TaftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. All Parties & PersonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Morrison v. Smith Bros., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Finance & Construction Co. v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Riverside County Flood Control v. Joseph W. Wolfskill Co.California Court of Appeal · 1957

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Basurto v. Imperial Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  3. Vanoni v. County of SonomaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  4. San Francisco Foundation v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
  5. County of San Bernardino v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994

12 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