Spinks v. City of Los Angeles
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.
The legal question presented by this appeal is: May a municipality, which is the owner in fee of land acquired without restrictions, and set aside for park purposes, devote a portion of the land to public use as a street? Certain findings of the trial court, relating to an opposition to such action by taxpayers and abutting property owners affected by the proposed change of use, have no bearing on the issue presented in this ease for our consideration, and may be disregarded in this discussion.
The city of Los Angeles, as the successor of the Mexican pueblo of the same name, is the owner in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Reichelderfer v. QuinnSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Slavich v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Jardine v. City of PasadenaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Seattle Land & Improvement Co. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1905
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Agricultural Prorate Commission v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- City & County of San Francisco v. LinaresCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Holloway v. PurcellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Marshall v. Standard Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
- Carl Beistline v. City of San Diego and General Dynamics CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1958
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.