Legal Opinion
Woodworth v. Town of Sebastopol
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 4, 1925No. Docket No. 2892PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.
The plaintiff brought this action to enjoin the defendants from issuing bonds for the cost of the improvement of certain streets in the town of Sebastopol. Judgment was entered in favor of defendants and plaintiff has appealed.
The resolution of intention to make the improvement stated that the work would be done under the Improvement Act of 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 730) and amendments thereto and that serial bonds to represent unpaid assessments would be issued in the manner provided by the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Stats. 1915, p. 1441) and amendments thereto. The record does not disclose…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Nicolson Pavement Co. v. PainterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Blochman v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Stanwood v. CarsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- N. P. Perine Contracting & Paving Co. v. QuackenbushCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Warren Brothers Co. v. BoyleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Braun, Bryant & Austin v. McGuireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Gualco v. City of BakersfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Miller v. Town of SebastopolCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Funk v. CampbellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941