Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

RODERICK McARTHUR, Respondent, v. MT. SHASTA POWER CORPORATION (aCorporation), Appellant.

CURTIS, J.

This action is referred to in the opinion this day filed in the case of McArthur v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp. (Sac. No. 4765), ante, p. 704 [ 45 P.2d 807], and is a companion case to the Anna McArthur case. Respondent's lands front on Pittville Pool and are located on the same side of said pool as the Anna McArthur lands, and between the two parcels of Anna McArthur lands involved in her said action against the appellant herein. [1] The same factual situation exists in this case as was presented in the Anna McArthur case. For this reason the decision in this case must be the same as that rendered and filed in the Anna McArthur case. Upon the authority of that case the judgment in the present action is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages alone, in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion this day filed in the case of McArthur v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp., Sac. No. 4765. Each party to pay his own costs.

Shenk, J., Waste, C.J., Thompson, J.. Spence, J., pro tem., and Nourse, J., pro tem., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

McARTHUR v. MT. SHASTA POWER CORPORATION
(May 29, 1935)