How have the courts treated the issue of admitting that the City owned the property adjacent to the railroad tracks?

Plaintiffs litigated this issue in their motions in limine seeking to exclude evidence of ownership of the property and to bind the City to its admission that it owned the "contiguous property adjacent to the railroad tracks." The trial court ruled that the City was bound by its responses to the RFAs, and the jury was instructed that it must accept as true the City's admissions in response to the RFAs. We presume that the jury followed the instructions of the court. (Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 780, 803-804.)