Brandon v. State of California , 19 Cal.2d 877
[S. F. No. 16037. In Bank. Mar. 4, 1942.]
JOSEPH F. BRANDON, Respondent, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellant.
COUNSEL
C. C. Carleton, Frank B. Durkee, C. R. Montgomery and Robert E. Reed for Appellant.
John J. O'Toole, City Attorney (San Francisco), Henry Heidelberg and Albert F. Skelly, Deputies City Attorney, Ray L. Chesebro, City Attorney (Los Angeles), William H. Neal and Leon T. David, Assistants City Attorney, and Arthur W. Nordstrom, Deputy City Attorney, as Amici Curiae, on behalf of Appellant.
E. H. Christian and Eugene K. Sturgis for Respondent.
Holbrook & Tarr, Leslie R. Tarr, Hill, Morgan & Bledsoe, Stanley S. Burrill, Charles P. McCarthy, Kenneth K. Wright and Meserve, Mumper & Hughes, as Amici Curiae, on behalf of Respondent. [19 Cal.2d 878]
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum
CARTER, J.
This is one of several cases in which an appeal has been taken by the defendant from a judgment rendered against it for damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff as the result of the construction of an improvement in the street or highway fronting the plaintiff's property. The facts in each case are substantially the same, although the amount of damage in each instance varies. For the injury to his property, plaintiff herein was awarded the sum of $750. All material legal questions here presented are determined by our decision this day filed in the case of Rose v. State of California, No. 16040, ante, p. 713 [103 PaCal.2d 505]. Upon the authority of and for the reasons set forth therein the judgment appealed from herein is affirmed.
Shenk, J., Curtis, J., and Houser, J., concurred.
[End of Volume 19 Cal.2d]
Opinion Information
Parties
| 1 | JOSEPH F. BRANDON (Respondent)
|
| 2 | , v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellant. (, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
|
| 3 | JOSEPH F. BRANDON (Respondent)
|
| Disposition |
| Mar 4 1942 | Opinion: Affirmed |
