BETTENCOURT v. STATE (1942)

Supreme Court of California.

BETTENCOURT v. STATE.

S. F. 16036.

Decided: March 04, 1942

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. E. H. Christian 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.

This is one of several appeals from judgments entered in actions for damages arising out of highway construction work. In each instance, the facts are substantially the same, although the extent of the injury varies.

The amount awarded for damage in this particular case was the sum of $3,500. All material legal 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.Sup., 123 P.2d 505. Upon the grounds and for the reasons there given, the judgment herein is affirmed.

CARTER, Justice.

SHENK, CURTIS, and HOUSER, JJ., concur.

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Out of date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