Legal Opinion
Spurrier v. Neumiller
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 27, 1918No. Civ. No. 1809PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The controversy herein arises by reason of two assessments levied by Reclamation District No. 17 in the county of San .Joaquin. The first one, which we will denominate the “Bonbini assessment,” was based upon a petition filed with the board of supervisors of said county on the second day of April, 1907, Charles and George Dangers being then the owners of the lands herein involved. The property was charged with an assessment of $3,270.63, against which a credit of $900.18 was allowed in consequence of a former assessment, and the balance with interest was finally paid on March 3, 1909. On May…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Houck v. Little River Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Pearsall v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Wisconsin & Michigan Railway Co. v. PowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Perry v. WashburnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Southern Service Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Mercury Herald Co. v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Hershey v. ColeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- La Mesa, Lemon Grove & Spring Valley Irrigation District v. HalleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Marculescu v. City Planning CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.