Legal Opinion

People v. Adamson

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 26, 1953No. Civ. 8220PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchottky, J.

Respondent filed an action in eminent domain for' the purpose of acquiring for a state highway and, in particular, a freeway, 8.02 acres of unimproved land and certain abutter’s rights of access owned by appellant. The property sought to be condemned is located easterly of Roseville, outside of . the city limits, and will accommodate the new freeway which will by-pass that city. The 8.02 acres of land being condemned is a part of a large parcel of land consisting of more than 280 acres which appellant had purchased in 1945 for $17,000, including a six-room house, barn and other buildings. No…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Bacich v. Board of ControlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Beals v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. City of Los Angeles v. GeigerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  5. County Sanitation District No. 2 v. AverillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Margaret Kinzli Evelyn Goossen Philip Kinzli Ernest Kinzli, Plaintiffs v. City of Santa CruzCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
  2. People v. MarshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  3. People v. AyonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  4. People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Schultz Co.California Court of Appeal · 1954
  5. People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. SilveiraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965

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

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

Powered by the Exa API