Legal Opinion

Otey v. Carmel Sanitary District

California Supreme Court

Decided October 30, 1933No. Docket No. S.F. 14719PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment quieting plaintiff’s title to certain beach lands at and near the mouth of the Carmel River in Monterey County. Plaintiff claims title by accession or accretion to the upland while the defendant claims through a legislative grant of tideland. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff and gave judgment accordingly.

The principal question on this appeal has to do with the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s findings. Section 1014 of the Civil Code declares that “Where, from natural causes, land forms by imperceptible degrees upon the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hatton v. GreggCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
  2. Forgeus v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
  3. Fendley v. City of AnaheimCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. People v. MontalvoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Gibson Properties Co. v. City of OaklandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Noble v. Kertz & Sons Feed & Fuel Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
  5. People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. AlexanderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963

12 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