Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles v. Peters
| Decision Date | 15 October 1953 |
| Citation | 120 Cal.App.2d 615,261 P.2d 561 |
| Parties | HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. PETERS et al. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. MILLER et al. Civ. 19792, 19793. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
G. G. Baumen, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Paul, Hastings & Janofsky, Loeb & Loeb, Los Angeles, Leonard S. Janofsky and Herman F. Selvin, Los Angeles, of counsel, for respondent.
After trial without a jury, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff in the above actions, which were consolidated for trial, condemning the property of defendants under the power of eminent domain for the construction of a housing project. From the judgment defendants appeal.
Defendants concede in their opening brief that the basic points which they raise have been passed on adversely to their contentions in Housing Authority v. Shoecraft, 116 Cal.App.2d 813, 254 P.2d 628 () (see also Housing Authority of Los Angeles County v. Dockweiler, 14 Cal.2d 437, 449 et seq., 94 P.2d 794; Riggin v. Dockweiler, 15 Cal.2d 651, 104 P.2d 367), but assert that there is pending before the United States Supreme Court an application for a writ of certiorari to review the decision in Housing Authority v. Shoecraft, supra, and they 'feel that their points should be asserted herein in order to avoid a waiver in the event the United States Supreme Court should act upon and decide the Shoecraft case in a different manner.'
The facts in Housing Authority v. Shoecraft are in all material aspects the same as those in the case at bar. Therefore we are bound by the foregoing decisions, the correct rule being that when the precise question of law has been decided by a District Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court has denied a hearing, such decision will be followed as settling the law in the absence of a later decision of the Supreme Court overruling or modifying the prior case. (Bridges v. Fisk, 53 Cal.App. 117, 122, 200 P. 71; People v. Whitaker, 68 Cal.App. 7, 11 et seq., 228 P. 376; Clover v. Jackson, 81 Cal.App. 55, 59, 253 P. 187; Masonic Mines Ass'n v. Superior Court, 136 Cal.App. 298, 300, 28 P.2d 691; Skaggs v. Taylor, 77 Cal.App. 519, 524, 247 P. 218.)
Since no useful purpose would be served by reiterating the rules of law set forth in the above opinions and applying them to the analogous facts of the present cases, we refrain from a detailed discussion of the points argued...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Retirement Cases
...Appeal and the Supreme Court has denied a hearing, such decision will be followed as settling the law ...." (Housing Authority v. Peters (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 615, 616, 261 P.2d 561.) However, they omit critical language at the end of the sentence: "in the absence of a later decision of the......
-
People v. Boyden
...450, 453, 54 A.L.R.2d 1137. See also, Estate of Brissel, 218 Cal.App.2d 841, 844, 32 Cal.Rptr. 458; Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles v. Peters, 120 Cal.App.2d 615, 616, 261 P.2d 561.) In any event, we have concluded that the judgment once again should be affirmed. The record before ......
-
Houghton v. City of Long Beach
...a hearing. This is 'most persuasive' (People v. Rowland, 19 Cal.App.2d 540, 542, 65 P.2d 1333). In Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles v. Peters, 120 Cal.App.2d 615, 616, 261 P.2d 561, it is said: 'Therefore we are bound by the foregoing decisions, the correct rule being that when the ......
-
Scott v. E. L. Yeager Constr. Co.
...Cal.App.2d 687, 692--693, 58 Cal.Rptr. 792; In re Estate of Brissel, 218 Cal.App.2d 841, 844, 32 Cal.Rptr. 458; Housing Authority v. Peters, 120 Cal.App.2d 615, 616, 261 P.2d 561; cf. DiGenova v. State Board of Education, 57 Cal.2d 167, 178, 18 Cal.Rptr. 369, 367 P.2d 865; Cole v. Rush, 45 ......