C. C. Carleton, Frank B. Durkee, C. R. Montgomery, and Robert E. Reed, all of Sacramento, for appellant. John J. O'Toole, City Atty., and Henry Heidelberg and Albert F. Skelly, Deputy City Attys., all of San Francisco, and Ray L. Chesebro, City Atty., William H. Neal and Leon T. David, Asst. City Attys., and Arthur W. Nordstrom, Deputy City Atty., all of Los Angeles, amici curiae on behalf of appellant. Louis J. Trabucco and Eugene K. Sturgis, both of Oakland, for respondent. Holbrook & Tarr, Leslie R. Tarr, Hill, Morgan & Bledsoe, Stanley S. Burrill, Charles P. McCarthy, Kenneth K. Wright, and Meserve, Mumper & Hughes, all of Los Angeles, amici curiae on behalf of respondent.
Defendant herein appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County in favor of plaintiff, awarding $7,500 for the damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff as the result of the construction of a subway in the street fronting her property. This is one of a series of similar cases in which the facts, rights and liabilities, are substantially the same. All material legal questions 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.Sup., 123 P.2d 505. Upon the authorities there cited and for the reasons there given, the judgment herein is affirmed.
SHENK, CURTIS, and HOUSER, JJ., concur.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.