Tetzner

Tetzner v. Hippler CA1/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 31, 2016A140643California5,506 words

Opinion

Opinion

Miller, J.

Filed 8/31/16 Tetzner v. Hippler CA1/

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ALFRED TETZNER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

A140643

v. ROBIN HIPPLER, JR., (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. CIV513134) Defendant and Appellant.

Plaintiffs Alfred and Kay Tetzner and defendant Robin Hippler share a backyard property line. In 2011, Hippler pruned three trees in the Tetzners’ backyard without their permission. The Tetzners sued Hippler and two of his sisters, alleging trespass, wrongful injuries to trees, and negligence. Hippler’s sisters settled with the Tetzners before trial for $20,000. After a jury trial against Hippler only, the jury found in favor of the Tetzners, awarding them $3,115.83 in economic damages and $17,884.18 in noneconomic…

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.