Legal Opinion

People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Cherry Highland Properties

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 16, 1999No. E023628PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GAUT, J.—

1. Introduction

This appeal raises the issue of what triggers the 60-day period within which a motion for new trial must be determined. In this action the State of California (State) condemned property owned by Cherry Highland Properties, a general partnership (Cherry).

After the jury verdict, Cherry applied for and was granted a new trial by the trial court on the issue of severance damages. The State contends that the time within which to grant that motion had expired, relying upon Code of Civil Procedure section 660. 1

Section 660 provides, in part, that “the power of the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Fuentes v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Van Beurden Insurance Services v. Customized Worldwide Weather Insurance AgencyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  3. McCordic v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. R & P Capital Resources, Inc. v. California State LotteryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  5. Cowee v. MarshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Palmer v. GTE California, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Dodge v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  3. Maroney v. IacobsohnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. Maroney v. IacobsohnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API