Legal Opinion
Smith v. Hill
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 30, 1965No. Civ. 7564PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWhelan, J.
Plaintiffs (Smith) were the owners of real property described in part as lots 14 and 15 situated in San Bernardino County and of certain equipment used in the operation on said real property of a rock-crushing plant and the preparation of sand and gravel for sale; the material so processed was obtained from other property under lease from Lytle Creek Water and Improvement Company (Lytle). Plaintiffs also were the owners of an easement upon two other lots described as lots 16 and 17 for the purpose of stockpiling sand and gravel, which easement was a residual interest in said lots left after…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Atlantic Trust Co. v. ChapmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Freedman v. Rector, Wardens & Vestrymen of St. Matthias ParishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Richter v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Beeler v. American Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Luz v. LopesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.California Supreme Court · 1968
- Geddes & Smith, Inc. v. Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- Berman v. KarvounisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
- Hand Electronics, Inc. v. Snowline Joint Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Waller v. BrooksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.