54 Cal. App. 737 - Stevens v. Moon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In opposition to these views, respondent cites Corpus Juris, volume 1, page 1233, section 94, to the effect that ‘one adjoining owner cannot maintain an action against another for the intrusion of roots or branches of a tree which is not poisonous or noxious in its nature; his remedy _ in such case is to clip or lop off the branches or cut the roots at the line’, which she claims is supported by Grandona v. Lovdal, 78 Cal. 616 [ 12 Am. St. Rep. 121 , 21 Pac. 366 ]. What is said in the excerpt from Corpus Juris is restricted to the roots or branches .of a tree which is not poisonous or noxious; that is, where no injury results. In the instant case the allegations of the complaint clearly show that the roots of these trees were noxious in that the fertility of the soil through which the roots permeated was destroyed to an extent that deprived plaintiff of the use of his land. In the Lovdal case the judgment in favor of defendant therein was affirmed because it appeared from the bill of exceptions that ‘ there was a conflict of testimony as to whether either the shade or roots of the trees injured plaintiff’s land, and as to whether said roots prevented plaintiff from plowing his land as near the fence as he otherwise could, and as to whether either the shade or roots oí said trees had an injurious effect upon the crops’. In Parker v. Larsen, 86 Cal. 236 [ 21 Am. St. Rep. 30 , 24 Pac. 989 ], it is said: ‘The rule is general, that, where one brings a foreign substance upon his l”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 17 Cal. App. 2d 450 - Crance v. Hems