Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

81 Cal. 289

Razzo v. Varni

California Supreme Court

Decided November 25, 1889

California Supreme Court · decided 1889-11-25

The complaint set forth a forcible trespass of the defendants upon the close of the plaintiff, bounded by West Lake, East Eake, and Mount Vernon avenues, and Lake Geneva, in the west end of San Francisco, alleged to have been committed on December 20, 1883.

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Water-Course”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-11-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 2000

21 state decisions

601889189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Fox, J., dissenting.

¶1I dissent. In my judgment the evidence, even if competent (which I do not concede), fails to show damage to an amount equal to one tenth the sum recovered. Whatever damages were attempted to be proved were such as grew out of loss of profits in the business, and the testimony as a whole shows by a great preponderance that this loss resulted from causes other than such as can be traced to the acts of defendants, and was common to all persons engaged in the business at that time.

¶2Besides, I am at a loss to see upon what principle the court can allow a recovery for damages accruing after the commencement of the suit, under a complaint not framed for the purpose; and every dollar of the damage proved, or attempted to be proved, in this case accrued long after the suit was brought, while the complaint was never, either originally or by amendment, framed for the recovery of such damages.

/81/cal/289 · .json · Public domain