Legal Opinion

Dunlop v. O'Donnell

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 4, 1935No. Civ. 1135; Civ. 1136PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.

The material facts and issues in these two actions, which have been consolidated for the purposes of this appeal, are identical and everything said herein will apply to each case.

The respondent is the owner of a certain parcel of land abutting on the northerly side of Third Street between Spring and Broadway Streets in the city of Los Angeles. The appellant O’Donnell, as the agent of the appellant Stimson, commenced the construction of a tunnel containing a permanent cement conduit some five and one-half feet wide under the northerly half of said Third Street, in front of the respondent’s…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Knight v. United States Land Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. Hart v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  3. City of San Francisco v. CanavanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  4. City of Dubuque v. MaloneySupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
  5. Moore v. WilkinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Abar v. RogersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API