Laughlin v. State of California

ELLA T. LAUGHLIN, 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.

Louis J. Trabucco 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.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum

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 Rose [19 Cal. 2d 876] v. State of California, No. 16040, ante, p. 713 [123 PaCal.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.