Merced Irrigation District v. Woolstenhulme
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
TOBRINER, J.
In response to the mounting social, environmental and health crises of recent years, governmental authorities have considerably expanded the planning and construction of “public improvements.” Because the definite commencement of a public project is almost invariably preceded by significant publicity and public interest, land values in the vicinity of the potential project often will increase in response to this foreknowledge. A recurring issue in eminent domain litigation is whether, and to what extent, such increases 1 in land values attributable to the proposed project…
2Cases cited49 opinions
- United States v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Olson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Shoemaker v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- United States v. Virginia Electric & Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Klopping v. City of WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- United States v. 320.0 Acres of Land, More or Less in the County of Monroe, State of Florida,and Salvatore R. CicconeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
- Glendale Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Marina View Heights Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1977
- Harman v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- City of Los Angeles v. DeckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.