Legal Opinion

Frustuck v. City of Fairfax

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 28, 1964No. Civ. 21679PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDevine, J.

Respondent Frustuck brought an action for damages against appellant city on the theory of inverse condemnation by alleged diversion of water over her property, and for injunction against repetition of the city’s acts. She was awarded judgment for $5,000 damages for inverse condemnation unless, within four months after the judgment be came final, appellant would divert the flow of water in excess of that which could be carried by a 20-inch culvert, in which event the $5,000 would not be payable; but a permanent injunction would be made enjoining the city from depositing any such excess waters…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Heimann v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Frustuck v. City of FairfaxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  4. City of Los Angeles v. AbbottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  5. La Mesa-Spring Valley School District v. Nobuo OtsukaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Klopping v. City of WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  2. County of Los Angeles v. OrtizCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. State v. Everett HolderIndiana Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Rauser v. Toston Irrigation DistrictMontana Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Peel v. BurkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1972

8 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