Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bacich v. Board of Control

California Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1943No. S. F. 16832Published

1DissentTraynor, J.

I dissent.

The majority opinion declares that the allowance of recovery to the owner in this ease “depends largely upon the character and extent of his property right.” It seeks such a right in the right of ingress and egress which, it declares, “being by its terms general in nature requires definition and *367clarification as to its extent and character.” What follows is a definition amplifying that right to make it a basis for recovery in the present case in terms of the invasion of property rights. As there is no invasion of traditional rights, a new right is created by the simple process of…

2Cases cited73 opinions

  1. Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Story v. . New York Elevated R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1882
  3. Rigney v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1881
  4. United States v. WelchSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  5. Crane v. HahloSupreme Court of the United States · 1922

68 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