Legal Opinion

Rhodes v. San Mateo Investment Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 5, 1955No. Civ. 16077PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDooling, J.

Plaintiffs and appellants are the owners of a lot of land improved with the home in which they live. This lot adjoins property belonging to defendant and respondent. The land is on a hillside and the property of appellants lies at a higher elevation than that of respondent. Respondent made excavations on its property which have resulted in slides creeping up the slope towards appellants’ land. At the time of the trial this slide area was moving closer to appellants’ property but had not actually encroached upon it and no physical damage had occurred to appellants’ land.

Appellants sued for an…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Spaulding v. CameronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. H. J. Heinz Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Kirby v. San Francisco Savings & Loan SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Sturges v. Charles L. Harney, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1958
  2. Helix Land Co. v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  3. Alexander v. McKnightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  4. Monks v. City of Rancho Palos VerdesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  5. Santa Fe Partnership v. ARCO Products Co.California Court of Appeal · 1996

2 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