# Bakersfield Community Hospital v. Department of Health

> California Court of Appeal · December 29, 1977 · 77 Cal. App. 3d 193

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9727871

## Case

- **Full name:** BAKERSFIELD COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** December 29, 1977
- **Citations:** 77 Cal. App. 3d 193; 142 Cal. Rptr. 773; 1977 Cal. App. LEXIS 2133
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown (g.A.)
- **Cited by:** 5 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/9727871

## Opinion text

BROWN (G. A.), P. J.
Upon petition for rehearing the Hospital urges for the first time in this court that this court should consider the issue of whether the Department should be held to be estopped, from claiming the proposed location is not adjacent. However, the comments of the trial judge and his memorandum of decision make clear that he decided the case solely on the interpretation of the word “adjacent,” and the findings and conclusions which were prepared by the Hospital made no finding or conclusion on that issue. The findings and conclusions in this regard are therefore deficient. Under these circumstances, since the Hospital prepared the findings and conclusions, it must be held to have invited the error in not entering the appropriate findings and conclusions on this issue, and it cannot complain of the error it has invited. (Johnson v. Rich (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 740, 747 [ 310 P.2d 980 ].)
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 2, 1978.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9727871. Public record. Not legal advice.