Hamaker v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.
By this action plaintiff sought to quiet her title to eighty acres of land. The answer alleges that the defendant owns easements in the land to maintain and operate a certain water ditch and its branches, an electric transmission line, a telephone line, and an aqueduct, together with a definitely described right of way through which said aqueduct is maintained. The court found that at the commencement of the action the defendant owned, maintained and operated the water ditch, electric line and telephone line, “together with a right of way therealong for the purpose of maintaining, patrolling,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Spring Valley Water Works v. DrinkhouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- City of Los Angeles v. PomeroyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Winslow v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Central Pacific Ry. Co. v. FeldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. PolhemusCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1910
3Cited by7 opinions
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Crockett Land & Cattle Co.California Court of Appeal · 1924
- Haley v. Los Angeles County Flood Control DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- McLean v. LadewigCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Crockett Land & Cattle Co. v. American Toll Bridge Co.California Supreme Court · 1931
- Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. JanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.