Legal Opinion
City of Hawthorne v. Peebles
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 5, 1959No. Civ. 23235PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHerndon, J.
The judgment here presented for review condemns certain parcels of land sought by respondent city for use as a part of its public park system. By its ordinance, the city council declared its determination that the public interest and necessity required the acquisition of certain described parcels of real property aggregating 8.2 acres in area for a public park. Part of this proposed park lies within the corporate limits of the city and part of it lies outside. All the parcels involved in this appeal lie outside the city limits, but each is bounded on one side by the city boundary line.
The…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- City of Pasadena v. StimsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Spring Valley Water Works v. DrinkhouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Gilmer v. ThrockmortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Latchis v. State Highway BoardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1957
- Klump v. CybulskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- SFPP, L.P. v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe RailwayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- People v. Van GordenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- County of Los Angeles v. BartlettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Monterey County Flood Control & Water Conservation District v. HughesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Lux Land & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1961
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.