Legal Opinion
Lantz v. City of Los Angeles
California Supreme Court
Decided March 5, 1921No. L. A. No. 6092PublishedCited by 16 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Charles Lantz, Howard F. Shepherd, Samuel M, Garroway and Winslow P. Hyatt for Appellant. Charles S. Burnell, City Attorney, Jess E. Stephens, Assistant City Attorney, and J. H. O’Connor, Deputy City Attorney, for Respondent.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
The district court of appeal rendered an opinion, prepared by Mr. Justice Richards, affirming the judgment in this case. It is as follows:
“This action was originally commenced by one T. A. Davis against the city of Los Angeles to quiet title to a strip of land described as ‘the westerly four hundred feet of lot A of the Euclid Heights Tract as per map thereof recorded, ’ etc., of which the plaintiff claimed to be the owner and entitled to the possession. The answer of the defendant denied that the plaintiff was the owner or entitled to the possession of said tract or any portion…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Tynan v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Cortelyou v. Imperial Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Leverone v. WeakleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Hartley v. VermillionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Burk v. City of Santa CruzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Union Transportation Co. v. Sacramento CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- City of Manhattan Beach v. CortelyouCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Highland Realty Co. v. City of San RafaelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Nixon v. EdwardsWyoming Supreme Court · 1953
- Hare v. CraigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.