BETTENCOURT v. STATE (1939)

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

Maria Simas BETTENCOURT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STATE of California, Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 10826

Decided: October 13, 1939

C.C. Carleton, Frank B. Durkee, C.R. Montgomery, and Robert E. Reed, all of Sacramento, for the State. E.H. Christian and Eugene K. Sturgis, both of Oakland, for respondent.

This is one of several appeals from judgments entered in actions for damages arising out of highway construction work. All material points here presented are disposed of in a decision this day filed in the case of Rose et al. v. State of California et al., Cal.App., 94 P.2d 1058. Upon the grounds and for the reasons there given, the judgment herein is reversed.

GEARY, Justice pro tem.

We concur: KNIGHT, Acting P.J.; WARD, J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network