Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

This decision affirms a judgment holding that Ins. Code 533 bars insurance coverage for a judgment against Conagra for the public nuisance caused by Fuller Paint's pre-1950 advertising promoting the use of lead-based paint for interior paint on residential units.  In the liability trial, the trial court found that Fuller had kwown at the time it made the advertisements that… Read More

Because the notice of abatement of nuisance was properly served by city and because plaintiff did not timely file an administrative appeal thereafter, plaintiff did not exhaust his available administrative remedy and was barred from suing in court to challenge the abatement order. Read More

Water districts obtained a permit from the Department of Health Services to add chloramine to drinking water in an effort to kill germs, so they were protected from a nuisance lawsuit which sought to challenge this practice. Read More

Under a homeowner’s insurance policy’s “personal injury” coverage, the insurer must defend a nuisance claim charging that a fence the insured built on his own property blocked an easement providing access to the plaintiff’s adjoining property. Read More

Lawsuit alleging that defendant had contaminated real property through its ordinary business operations on the site, which it had used as a bulk terminal for petroleum products, was barred by three-year statute of limitations applicable to injuries to real property.   Read More

Defendant city was not barred from imposing a lien on plaintiff’s property to pay for the cost of abating nuisance caused by absentee landowner plaintiff’s failure to maintain the yard. Read More

Annoyance and discomfort damages for trespass by defendant’s setting a wildfire that burned plaintiff’s home can include compensation for plaintiff’s emotional distress even though plaintiff was not present at the fire and suffered no physical injury.  Read More

Judgment for defendant in a private nuisance action was affirmed as substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings that the noise from defendants’ resort was not unreasonable nor was the injury to the plaintiff substantial, even if the noise violated the county noise ordinance.  Read More