Laughlin v. State

California Supreme Court Mar 4, 1942 No. S. F. No. 16039Published

Before: Carter

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff for property injury resulting from subway construction, relying on the legal principles established in the companion case of Bose v. State of California.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for property injury caused by the construction of a subway in the street fronting her property.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Upon the authorities there cited and for the reasons there given, the judgment herein is affirmed.”

CARTER, J. — 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 Bose [876]v. State of California, No. 16040, ante, p. 713 [123 Pac. (2d) 505], Upon the authorities there cited and for the reasons there given, the judgment herein is affirmed.

Shenk, J., Curtis, J., and Houser, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied April 2, 1942. Gibson, C. J., Edmonds, J., and Traynor, J., voted for a rehearing.

Laughlin v. State

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief