Tarpey v. Veith
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Geo. E. Church, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLennon, P. J.
This action was instituted for the purpose of preventing by injunction the defendant’s threatened continuing trespass upon the lands of the plaintiff. The defendant in his original answer denied that he had trespassed upon the lands of plaintiff, or that he had threatened to commit a continuing trespass or any trespass upon such lands; and as a special defense to the action pleaded that the strip of land in controversy was a public highway free and open to the use of the defendant and the public in general..
In accordance with the issue thus raised the case was tried upon the theory that such…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Clarke v. ClarkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- City of Los Angeles v. McCollumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Dexter v. TreeIllinois Supreme Court · 1886
- Stewart v. . FrinkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- Andries v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1895
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Roediger v. CullenWashington Supreme Court · 1946
- Barlow v. FrinkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Schwartz v. ShapiroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Jones v. Tierney-SinclairCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- MacDonald Properties, Inc. v. Bel-Air Country ClubCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.