TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City Investment Co. v. Racik

CITY INVESTMENT COMPANY (A Corporation), v. JOHN RACIK Et Al., Appellants

City Inv. Co. v. Racik, 263 P. 555 (Cal. Ct. App. 1928)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 18, 1928
Docket
No. 5994.
Judges
Koford
Citations
263 P. 55588 Cal. App. 3831928 Cal. App. LEXIS 339

Opinion of the Court — Koford

KOFORD, P. J.

The judgment appealed from gave plain. tiff a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from a portable news-stand in front of the plaintiff’s property on the west side of Third Street, just south of Market Street, in San Francisco. The news-stand consisted basally of a four-wheeled wagon, four feet wide, ten feet long, and six and one-half feet high. Daily from 9 A. M. to 9 P. M. it remained parked with two wheels in the street and two upon the sidewalk. From the photograph it appears as if one side of the wagon unfolded out over the sidewalk, forming a supplemental platform or shelf which rested on boxes placed on the sidewalk. This was covered on top with an awning. The three sides of the extension and the three sides of the wagon proper were walled in with racks which were filled with magazines and newspapers set up for display and sale.

Based upon appropriate pleadings, the court made findings to the effect that the news-stand constituted a public *384 nuisance and that plaintiff had suffered damage thereby different in kind and degree from that suffered by the general public and that such damage was incapable of pecuniary estimation and irreparable.

Respondent has carefully cited law and precedents for each legal principle involved in such an action and points out that this ease is substantially the same as Strong v. Sullivan, 180 Cal. 331 [4 A. L. R. 343, 181 Pac. 59 ], but it is unnecessary to consider these legal principles because appellant makes one and only one point on this appeal. Appellant merely contends that there is no evidence to support the court’s findings. This argument is based upon a consideration of the oral testimony on the point of what extent and in what manner the news-stand obstructed the full use of the street and interfered with the plaintiff’s right of ingress and egress and with its right of light, air, and view in the enjoyment of its property. This oral testimony, however, does not fail to show substantial injury to plaintiff’s rights. More important and most convincing, however, are the visible and physical facts of the case, which are scarcely in dispute. Three photographic views of the news-stand as set up in operation were received in evidence and are a part of this record on appeal. These alone eloquently and fully support the court’s findings complained of by appellant.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Nourse, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1946: 11975: 119462026peak 1946 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. California Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. City of Burbank51 Cal. App. 3d 50 (1975)
  2. Cowin v. City of Waterloo21 N.W.2d 705 (Iowa 1946)

Most recent

  1. California Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. City of Burbank51 Cal. App. 3d 50 (1975)
  2. Cowin v. City of Waterloo21 N.W.2d 705 (Iowa 1946)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Strong v. Sullivan, 181 P. 59 (Cal. 1919) 36

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list