Legal Opinion
Blum v. City & County of San Francisco
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 23, 1962No. Civ. 19497PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBray, P. J.
Defendants and cross-complainants, Eaton & Smith, appeal from that portion of the judgment which provided that its recovery from defendant and cross-defendant City and County of San Francisco (hereafter referred to as the City) be without interest for any period prior to judgment.
Questions Presented
1. Does section 3287, Civil Code, apply to the City and County of San Francisco ?
2. Is there any other issue on this appeal?
Record
This is a phase of the litigation resulting from the removal of certain cable car lines in San Francisco. In 1948 section 119.3 was added to the San Francisco Charter.…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Abbott v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van WinkleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Douglass v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Nicholl v. KosterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Benson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Templeton Feed & Grain v. Ralston Purina Co.California Supreme Court · 1968
- Culbertson v. CizekCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- State Ex Rel. Harris v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLPCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Gibbons & Reed Co. v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.