# Cowart v. Union Paving Co.

> California Supreme Court · September 23, 1932 · 216 Cal. 375

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3299301

## Case

- **Full name:** F. W. COWART Et Al., Respondents, v. UNION PAVING COMPANY (A Corporation) Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 23, 1932
- **Citations:** 216 Cal. 375; 14 P.2d 764; 83 A.L.R. 1185; 1932 Cal. LEXIS 577
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Shenk
- **Judges:** Tyler, Shenk
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3299301

## Opinion text

SHENK, J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment and the legal conclusions on which it is based. But I do so reluctantly because the result is a plain indication that the rights of the property owners have by the legislature, supported by the opinion, just about been reduced to nothing. The theory of our laws imposing upon property owners the obligation to pay for paving proceedings has been and is that they shall have some voice in determining whether the work shall be done. Now apparently they have none. The proceedings may now be initiated without their consent or the opportunity to object thereto and, however irregular the conduct thereof, even to the extent of entire invalidity, and even though their property was not included within the assessment district, such property may now be brought in and subjected to an assessment. They should be accorded some rights under the statute. It seems to me highly desirable that the legislature take the necessary steps to accord the property owners some voice in these
in invitum
proceedings and adequately to safeguard the rights so accorded, since the courts under present law are powerless to afford an adequate remedy for obvious abuses.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3299301. Public record. Not legal advice.