Legal Opinion
Romero v. County of Santa Clara
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 21, 1970No. Civ. 25221PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DAVID, J. pro tem. *
By her amended complaint, appellant' Juanita C. Romero, sought damages for the destruction of her 48 dogs; and for great bodily harm and mental suffering when she allegedly called to see the pile of her deceased dogs at the animal shelter where the massacre occurred. The defendants, who “intentionally, wrongfully, and maliciously[ 1 ] and with intent to injure plaintiff’s said property” did the deed, were alleged to be respondent, County of Santa Clara, and certain of its employees, acting in the scope of their employment, namely, defendants Roy Barghini, Phillip…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Driscoll v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Eagle Oil & Refining Co. v. PrenticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Lord v. GarlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Simpson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Beazell v. SchraderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Calfarm Insurance v. KrusiewiczCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa RosaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Dale v. City of Mountain ViewCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Superior Dispatch, Inc. v. Insurance Corp. of New YorkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.