People v. Adamson
California Court of Appeal
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
- Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Bacich v. Board of ControlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Beals v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- City of Los Angeles v. GeigerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- County Sanitation District No. 2 v. AverillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Margaret Kinzli Evelyn Goossen Philip Kinzli Ernest Kinzli, Plaintiffs v. City of Santa CruzCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- People v. MarshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- People v. AyonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Schultz Co.California Court of Appeal · 1954
- People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. SilveiraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.