City of Los Angeles v. Cline
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Albert Lee Stephens, City Attorney, C. D. Pillsbury and "Win. P. Mealey, Deputy City Attorneys, for Appellant. Daniel M. Hunsaker, Hunsaker, Britt & Edwards and Samuel Poorman, Jr., for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtConrey, P. J.
In this action the plaintiff proceeded under the “Street Opening Act of 1903,” and sought to condemn and take for street purposes certain land of the respondents. After trial and a verdict assessing the value of the land to be taken, an interlocutory judgment was entered whereby the property of the respondents was condemned to the use of the plaintiff upon the payment of the amount specified in the judgment. The compensation provided for by said judgment was not paid. Instead thereof, the city attorney, after being duly authorized thereto by the city council, moved the court for dismissal of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- City of Pasadena v. StimsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- The Title & Document Restoration Co. v. KerriganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- City of Sacramento v. SwanstonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
- Silver Lake Power & Irrigation Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
3Cited by4 opinions
- City of Los Angeles v. AbbottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- City of Los Angeles v. ClayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- City of Los Angeles v. Griffith AbbottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- City of Oakland v. ParkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924