Legal Opinion
Hemmerling v. Tomlev, Inc.
California Supreme Court
Decided October 30, 1967No. L.A. No. 28980PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTraynor, C. J.
This action involves the condemnation of approximately 1,000 square feet of land (parcel 4) located east of Anaheim in Orange County. The parcel was owned in undivided interests by defendants Arthur E. Hemmerling and Huida M. Hemmerling, a group of corporations, and Holly Wade Davidson. The Hemmerlings appeal from the judgment apportioning the condemnation award.
Parcel 4 was owned in common by defendants subject to an agreement executed by them or their predecessors in interest on February 5, 1926. All of the parties to the agreement individually owned other land in the vicinity of parcel 4.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Culbertson v. CizekCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Joint Highway District No. 9 v. Ocean Shore RailroadCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Cheda v. BodkinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- City of Menlo Park v. ArtinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- City of Stockton v. MarengoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Foreman & Clark Corp. v. FallonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- SCI California Furneral Services, Inc. v. Five Bridges FoundationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Whitney Investment Co. v. Westview Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1969
- South Bay Irrigation District v. California-American Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1976
- Griffith v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.