Legal Opinion

Williams v. Merced Irrigation District

California Supreme Court

Decided August 26, 1935No. Sac. 4848PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.

The question presented by this appeal may be stated as presented by the respondent: “Where a public agency has taken possession of real property, and devoted it to a public use, is an action by the landowner for compensation for the land so taken one based on contract and transitory, or one for injuries to real property and therefore local?” The trial court held the action to be transitory, and granted the motion of defendant for a change of place of trial from Mariposa County, wherein the land of plaintiffs is situated, to Merced County, the place of residence of the defendant irrigation…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. In re the Bonds of the Madera Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Newport v. HattonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Gurnsey v. Northern California Power Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Crescent Wharf & Warehouse Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Turlock Irrigation Dist. v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Chilberg v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  2. Foundation Engineers, Inc. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA CTY.California Court of Appeal · 1993
  3. Arcularius v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  4. State Highway Commission v. GoodwinOregon Supreme Court · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API