6 Cited authorities

  1. Klein v. United States of America

    50 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 93 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Certifying a question to the California Supreme Court because of doubts over whether the relevant intermediate court of appeals decision was correct
  2. Friends of the Trails v. Blasius

    78 Cal.App.4th 810 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 58 times
    Denying relief against easement owner was proper when the easement owner had no interest adverse to the plaintiffs
  3. Hanshaw v. Long Valley Rd. Assn.

    116 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 22 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding Civ. Code, § 1009 does not abolish implied dedications arising from public nonrecreational use
  4. Pulido v. Pereira

    234 Cal.App.4th 1246 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 10 times   2 Legal Analyses

    C072284 03-05-2015 Antonio PULIDO et al., Cross-complainants and Respondents, v. Alfred Robert PEREIRA, Jr., Individually and as Trustee, etc., Cross-defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Stephanie J. Finelli and Stephanie J. Finelli,Sacramento, for Cross-defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of William E. Barnes, Mark H. Salyer and William E. Barnes, Sacramento, for Cross-complainants and Respondents. BLEASE, Acting P.J. Law Office of Stephanie J. Finelli and Stephanie J. Finelli,Sacramento, for

  5. Gion v. City of Santa Cruz

    2 Cal.3d 29 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 75 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Gion, we noted, "the public use of the land [was] accentuated by the active participation of the city in maintaining the land and helping the public to enjoy it."
  6. Bustillos v. Murphy

    96 Cal.App.4th 1277 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Bustillos, as summarized by Pulido, "Bustillos and others used an undeveloped property that was adjacent to a residential development for recreational purposes.