City of Los Angeles v. Pomeroy
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. Lucien Shaw, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBeatty, C. J.
This is a proceeding to condemn “all the estate, right, title, and interest” of the defendants in and to a tract of land embracing about three hundred and fifteen acres, for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff—a municipal corporation—to construct and maintain thereon the “headworks” of its projected system for supplying water to its inhabitants for private and municipal purposes." The defendants, appealing from a decree of condemnation and from an order overruling their motion for a new trial, not only allege numerous errors in the rulings of the superior court, but challenge the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Spring Valley Water Works v. DrinkhouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Southern Pac. R.R. v. DufourCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Spring Valley Water Works v. San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Gould v. EatonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by77 opinions
- Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- City of Los Angeles v. City of San FernandoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Rancho Santa Margarita v. VailCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District Number One v. Southwest Cotton Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1931
72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.