California Supreme Court, 1942

Bettencourt v. State

California Supreme Court · Decided March 4, 1942 · Carter

19 Cal. 2d 876

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. Nordstorm, Deputy City Attorney, as Amici Curiae, on behalf of Appellant., E. H. Christian 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

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.