Neil v. City of Glendale

2 Citing cases

  1. Weibel v. City of Beatrice

    79 N.W.2d 67 (Neb. 1956)   Cited 2 times

    They have reached the conclusion that the city is not liable. We cite Lynch v. Town Council of Georgetown, 21 Del. Ch. 25, 180 A. 594; Webber v. Salt Lake City, 40 Utah 221, 120 P. 503, 37 L.R.A.N.S. 1115; City of West Point v. Barry, 218 Miss. 739, 67 So.2d 729; Neil v. City of Glendale, 106 Cal.App. 553, 289 P. 877; Ditzen v. Kansas City, 138 Kan. 830, 28 P.2d 739. The trial court held that plaintiff's right to recover was grounded also on Article I, section 21, of the Constitution of Nebraska, which is: "The property of no person shall be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor."

  2. Bowen v. Winterle

    30 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1947)   Cited 1 times

    "The right of a municipality to remove shade trees in public streets when necessary for the improvement of said streets, and without liability to an abutting owner, is not open to question. Neil v. Glendale (1930) 106 Cal.App. 553, 289 P. 877. Again it is declared in Lynch v. Georgetown (1935) Del. Ch. _____ 180 A. 594: `The right of the individual citizen whose property abuts on a street or highway to the continued presence of trees therein is subject to the lawfully conferred paramount authority of the appropriate body having jurisdiction over the streets, etc., to remove them for the purpose of rendering the highway safe and convenient, or to carry out a plan or system of street improvements, or to prevent roots from clogging a city sewer.