# Rose v. State of California

> California Supreme Court · March 4, 1942 · 19 Cal. 2d 713

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9576039

## Case

- **Full name:** MARY v. ROSE Et Al., Respondents v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 4, 1942
- **Citations:** 19 Cal. 2d 713; 123 P.2d 505
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Houser
- **Judges:** Carter, Houser, Gibson
- **Cited by:** 314 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/9576039

## Opinion text

HOUSER, J.,
Concurring. — I concur in the judgment of affirmance, but I do not agree with that portion of the majority opinion which holds that damage suffered as the result of diversion of travel is not compensable.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9576039. Public record. Not legal advice.