gno.law

Bettencourt v. State

California Supreme Court · S. F. No. 16036 · 1942-03-04 · Published · 19 Cal. 2d 876 · 123 P.2d 525 · 1942 Cal. LEXIS 416

MARIA SIMAS BETTENCOURT v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Area
civil
Panel
Jesse W. Carter (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Carter

CARTER, J. — 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.

*877The amount awarded for damage in this particular ease 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 v. State of California, No. 16040, ante, p. 713 [123 Pac. (2d) 505]. Upon the grounds 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.

Cites, in this corpus