Legal Opinion

Cooper v. Selig

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 18, 1920No. Civ. No. 2113PublishedCited by 23 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.

This action is in ejectment to recover possession, together with the damages for use, of a strip of land which was formerly a part of a public street in the city of Los Angeles. The evidence fails to show any interest in the property on the part of T. A. Davis, and we shall, therefore, in the opinion, refer to Mary Cooper as the only plaintiff and appellant. According to the statement of her counsel, she claims relief “under the principle of law that the adjoining owner of realty owns the fee to the center of a street, subject only to the easement for street purposes, and upon the abandonment…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Barnett v. BarnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Burnett v. PiercyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Greene v. O'ConnorSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1892
  4. Kilpatrick v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1895
  5. Anderson v. YoakumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  2. City of Long Beach v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Elliott v. McCombsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Highland Realty Co. v. City of San RafaelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Marshall v. Standard Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936

18 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