Legal Opinion
Baker v. Pierce
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 30, 1950No. Civ. 4117PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.
The plaintiffs and the defendant owned adjoining tracts of land in Indio, each of which was improved as a motel. The plaintiffs’ predecessors had granted to the defendant an easement over a 5-foot strip of their property for the purpose of installing and maintaining a water pipe line. The agreement therefor provided that such pipe line should be installed and maintained below the surface of the ground, and that the granting of the easement should not preclude the grantors from placing and maintaining buildings upon the land covered by the easement.
Nearly two years before this easement was…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hill v. MorrisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Zlozower v. LindenbaumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Alphonzo E. Bell Corp. v. ListleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Switzler v. Robert A. Klein & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
- Hancock v. George R. Curtis Paving Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
3Cited by15 opinions
- Reichardt v. HoffmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Locklin v. City of LafayetteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Rony v. CostaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Center Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. City of DerbySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
- Davis v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1970
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.