Hart v. City of Los Angeles

California Supreme Court

Hart v. City of Los Angeles

181 Cal. 32

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 11, 1919

DocketL. A. No. 4444

StatusPublished

This text of 181 Cal. 32 (Hart v. City of Los Angeles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hart v. City of Los Angeles, 181 Cal. 32 (Cal. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAW, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendants. The facts in the case, with a single exception, are the same as those more fully set forth in the case of Frost v. Los Angeles ante, p. 22, [183 Pac. 342], The difference consists only in the fact that the plaintiff in this action is not a user of water which comes from the source which is alleged to be contaminated and unfit for use, and which the court found to be safe and healthful. The plaintiff, therefore, does not come within the provisions of the act of 1913, under which alone, in view of the findings of the court, he could maintain an action to enjoin a public nuisance. Consequently he had no right to maintain the action.

The judgment is affirmed.

Olney, J., Wilbur, J., Lennon, J., Melvin, J., Angellotti, C. J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHAW, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendants. The facts in the case, with a single exception, are the same as those more fully set forth in the case of Frost v. Los Angeles ante, p. 22, [183 Pac. 342], The difference consists only in the fact that the plaintiff in this action is not a user of water which comes from the source which is alleged to be contaminated and unfit for use, and which the court found to be safe and healthful. The plaintiff, therefore, does not come within the provisions of the act of 1913, under which alone, in view of the findings of the court, he could maintain an action to enjoin a public nuisance. Consequently he had no right to maintain the action.

The judgment is affirmed.

Olney, J., Wilbur, J., Lennon, J., Melvin, J., Angellotti, C. J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 Cal. 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-city-of-los-angeles-cal-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack