Legal Opinion
Housing Authority v. Forbes
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 31, 1942No. Civ. 11786PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GOODELL, J. pro tem.
Fifteen proceedings in eminent domain were brought to condemn residential property in West Oakland for a low-rent housing project known as Peralta Vil lage. The project itself (officially called Cal. 3-1) embraces seven, city blocks lying between 8th and 12th, Cypress and Union Streets, and contains 171 parcels. Of these 171 parcels, only 17 are involved in this litigation and they are found in different parts of the area; they are not all contiguous. The cases were consolidated and tried together. There were fifteen separate verdicts aggregating $60,225, upon which…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- City of Pasadena v. StimsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Vallejo & Northern R.R. v. Reed Orchard Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- The Housing Authority v. DockweilerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- People v. Globe Grain & Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
- County of San Mateo v. CoburnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Blumenschein v. Pittsburgh Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- City of Los Angeles v. ColeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- People v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- In Re Housing Authority of City of Charlotte.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Williams v. SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATEDSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1973
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.