Community Redevelopment Agency v. Abrams
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SULLIVAN, J.
In this action in eminent domain both parties have appealed from a judgment which, inter alia, awarded compensation to the condemnee, a pharmacist, for the value of certain “ethical drugs” located on the condemned real property but refused to award any compensation for loss of business goodwill resulting from the taking. In dealing with the questions thus presented we are required to address a broad question of constitutional law which, to borrow the image used by one learned commentator in a similar context, has proved remarkably “resistant to analytical efforts.” 1 (See…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- United States v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- United States v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- D'AMICO v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Redevelopment Agency v. GilmoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- City of Phoenix v. Leroy's Liquors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1993
- People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. MullerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- City of Janesville v. CC Midwest, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2007
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.