City of Oakland v. Pacific Coast Lumber & Mill Co.
California Supreme Court
APPLICATION to recall a Remittitur. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, C. J.
This was an action in eminent domain. The jury’s award of damages was not acceptable to defendant, which appealed from the judgment of the superior court, and the order denying its motion for a new trial. On December 6, 1915, the judgment and order were affirmed by this court. The judgment by this court gave no direction as to costs. In the remittitur issued by the clerk of this court on January 6, 1916, there was inserted, as is done where there is no reversal or modification by this court of the judgment or order appealed from, and there is no direction by this court to the contrary, the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Washburn v. Milwaukee & Lake Winnebago RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- City of San Francisco v. CollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. StevinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Los Angeles, Pasadena, & Glendale Railway Co. v. RumppCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Market Street Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission of CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- In Re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Heimann v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. ZuckermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- City of Los Angeles v. RicardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.