Legal Opinion
George v. City of Los Angeles
California Supreme Court
Decided May 24, 1938No. L. A. 16562PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.
Plaintiff commenced this action to obtain compensation for damages alleged to have been suffered when his automobile was caused to leave a public street in the City of Los Angeles and to strike poles which had been erected by defendant Los Angeles Gas and Electric Corporation. Both the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Gas and Electric Corporation were named parties defendant. Each defendant filed a demurrer and both demurrers were sustained without leave to amend. From the resulting judgment plaintiff appeals.
From the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint it appears that on April 11,…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Norton v. City of PomonaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Nicholson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Beeson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Rafferty v. City of MarysvilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Carroll v. Central Counties Gas Co.California Court of Appeal · 1925
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Bauman v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Fackrell v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Nelson v. Duquesne Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Palmer v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Osborn v. City of WhittierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.