Legal Opinion

Logan v. City of Glendale

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 22, 1933No. Docket No. 9017PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNourse, P. J.

Plaintiffs sued for an injunction to restrain defendant from proceeding under the Vrooman Act (Stats. 1885, p. 147; Peering’s Gen. Laws, Act 8194) to improve portions of Brand Boulevard with an ornamental electric lighting system. Defendants had judgment and the plaintiffs have appealed upon typewritten transcripts.

In their opening brief the appellants assigned six questions as involved on the appeal. The first assignment reads: “Is an ornamental electric street lighting system a public utility or a part of the plant and equipment of a public utility!” As our answer to this question requires…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Davoust v. City of AlamedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Osburn v. StoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Burke v. MeadIndiana Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Hyatt v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Ex Parte GoodrichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Larsen v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  2. Brown v. OxtobyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  3. Burkhouse v. PhillipsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
  4. Wilbur v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Lady v. PalenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936

3 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