Legal Opinion

City of Long Beach v. O'Donnell

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 15, 1928No. Docket No. 5692PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHAW, J., pro tem.

This was a proceeding in eminent domain brought to condemn several parcels of real property for public park purposes. The appellants were named in the complaint as defendants and filed an answer, appearing by attorneys whom they had engaged for that purpose. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed notice of abandonment of the proceedings; whereupon appellants sought and obtained, under section 1255a of the Code of Civil Procedure, a judgment of dismissal. Appellants then filed a cost bill in which they included a sum claimed by them as attorney fees. Plaintiff made a motion to tax…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Patterson v. DonnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Rapp v. Spring Valley Gold Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Bank of Woodland v. TreadwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  4. City of Sacramento v. SwanstonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
  5. Reynolds v. Sorosis Fruit CompanyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Trope v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  3. Merced Irrigation District v. WoolstenhulmeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Vella v. HudginsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  5. City of Los Angeles v. KnappCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936

9 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