photobanner

Case Library

Ernest A. Long ADR publishes monthly Case Studies of important Court decisions in California. Cases are selected on a discretionary basis, bearing on the practice of law in the State Court system. www.courts.ca.gov The Studies are prepared to keep the legal community apprised of developments in the field and are archived here, in our Case Library.
Because our Studies are prepared close to the time of original publication, the cases have yet to receive their official case citations. Opinions remain accessible on the official court website for 120 days, referenced by date. The information conveyed in the Studies is an accurate recounting of the original opinion. The language, quotations and holdings expressed in the Case Studies are not legal authority and should not be presented in court filed documents without first checking the published opinion in the official reports. This page provides access to each of the court decisions, in their original form, that we have reviewed, along with our previously published Case Study. Typically, a PDF copy of the reported decision is attached to our electronically distributed Case Study, and this Case Library provides a compendium of all the opinions we have discussed.
To access a Case Study or a Supreme Court or Appellate Court opinion that was the subject of one of our Case Studies, enter your search terms in the Search box at the right of any page of this website, or go to the Download Case Studies section to scroll through the listings of topics and case names of all Case Studies from January 2008 to the present. The opinions are from the official court website, issued prior to designation of the official reporter citation which is not generated until approximately 90 days after the case is first posted on the court website.

Download Case Studies and Opinions:


Vanderpol v Starr – Opinion

Vanderpol v Starr (4/15/11) Special Verdict; Spite Fence Statute; Nuisance Plaintiffs’ property adjoins that of defendants. Situated on a hillside, plaintiffs’ land is above defendants’ property, and both have views of the Pacific Ocean. When Plaintiffs purchased the property in 1999, a line of eucalyptus trees ran along the defendants’ side of a fence separating the two parcels. The trees did not block plaintiffs’ view. The prior owner stated there was an arrangement with the property owner below to keep the trees trimmed to heights that would not disrupt the view. The trees were about 9 to 12 feet tall…

Vanderpol v Starr – Case Study

Vanderpol v Starr (4/15/11) Special Verdict; Spite Fence Statute; Nuisance Plaintiffs’ property adjoins that of defendants. Situated on a hillside, plaintiffs’ land is above defendants’ property, and both have views of the Pacific Ocean. When Plaintiffs purchased the property in 1999, a line of eucalyptus trees ran along the defendants’ side of a fence separating the two parcels. The trees did not block plaintiffs’ view. The prior owner stated there was an arrangement with the property owner below to keep the trees trimmed to heights that would not disrupt the view. The trees were about 9 to 12 feet tall…

Go Back