Pasadena Park Improvement Co. v. Lelande
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. A. J. Hill, County Counsel, and C. E. Haas, Deputy County Counsel, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
Under the law of 1895 (Stats. 1895, p. 248 et seq.), as this law has been amended (Stats. 1909, p. 807; Stats. 1911, p. 446), the board of supervisors of the county of Los Angeles proceeded with the organization of the Rubio Protection District of Los Angeles County, caused work to be done, and an assessment for the payment of this work to be declared. That assessment, under the law, becomes a lien upon the property benefited when the county clerk, as ex-officio clerk of the board of supervisors, places the proper documents in the hands of the county tax collector. This action was directed…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Lent v. TillsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Civic Center Ass'n of Los Angeles v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. EdgertonIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Spring Street Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Mulligan v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Orosi Public Utility District v. McCuaigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Gadd v. McGuireCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Anaheim Sugar Co. v. County of OrangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Santa Barbara County Water Agency v. All Persons & PartiesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Ferry v. O'BrienCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.