Hill

Hill v. City of Long Beach

Bad Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 353·33 Cal. App. 4th 1684·40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 125·95 Daily Journal DAR 4782·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2753
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 14, 1995B077373California4,027 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perez, J.

The City of Long Beach, the Long Beach Harbor Department, and the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners (collectively the City) appeal a judgment entered after a jury trial ordering the City to pay $913,425 in damages to Leland R. Hill for breach of contract. Leland R. Hill cross-appeals the sustaining of the demurrers of the City and the individual defendants to his noncontract causes of action. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the judgment against the City and direct the trial court to enter judgment for the City as to Hill’s contract causes of action. Further, we dismiss Hill’s cross-appeal without reaching its merits.

Facts and Procedural History

Because this appeal comes to us after judgment in Hill’s favor, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to Hill. We must not reweigh the evidence, but rather must defer to the jury’s factual findings if there is any substantial evidence to support them. (Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 111 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 681 , 534 P.2d 377 , 74 A.L.R.3d 1282 ] [“appellate court is bound to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict”].) However, we independently review…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.