People ex rel. Britton v. Park and Ocean Railroad
Citations
- 76 Cal. 156
- 18 P. 141
- 1888 Cal. LEXIS 845
Syllabus
<p>Pubprestube — Definition of.—A purpresture exists where one incloses or makes several to himself that which ought to be common to many.</p> <p>Golden Gate Park—Legal Title in San Francisco in Trust for Public. —The title to the Golden Gate Park, under the acts of Congress and of the state cited in the opinion, is in the city and county of San Francisco, in trust for the use of the public.</p> <p>Id.—Railroad in Park—When not a Nuisance.—A railroad unlawfully constructed in the park is a purpresture, and if it unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use in the customary manner of such park by the public, it is a nuisance, and may be abated as such by a court of equity. If it is not a nuisance, the remedy is not by the people who are not injured, but by the holder of the legal title.</p> <p>Id. —Nuisance a Question of Fact. —Whether or not an encroachment upon a public or private right is a nuisance, is a question of fact to be determined by the jury or by the court sitting as such.</p> <p>Id.—Defendant’s Road not a Nuisance. — The road of the defendant, being constructed and operated so as not to obstruct the free and comfortable use in the customary manner of the park by the public, held, not a nuisance.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- requiring for collateral estoppel “identity of the parties ... in both actions” and that same issue “actually [was] litigated and decided in the previous action” or “necessarily had to be decided in order for the previous judgment to have been rendered”
- requiring for collateral estoppel “identity of the parties . . . in both actions” and that same issue “actually [was] litigated and decided in the previous action” or “necessarily had to be decided in order for the previous judgment to have been rendered”
- only as to this Court’s conclusion that the Edmondsons “acted and were treated as parties” and were therefore bound by collateral estoppel
- \the re-adjudication of an issue that has previously been litigated and adjudicated on the merits in another action between the same parties or their privies\ is barred by collateral estoppel
- “the re-adjudication of an issue that has previously been litigated and adjudicated on the merits in another action between the same parties or their privies” is barred by collateral estoppel
- foster parents’ claim for adoption of child not barred because they were not a party to earlier adoption proceeding with different prospective parents, nor were their interests represented by the parties to that proceeding
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Searls
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.