Legal Opinion

Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

California Supreme Court

Decided August 7, 2006No. S132619PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MORENO, J.

As part of a roadway beautification project in advance of the 2000 Democratic National Convention, the City of Los Angeles (City) planted a number of palm trees on City-owned property along a public street. Plaintiff Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (Regency), claims that the trees made several of its roadside billboards less visible, at least as seen from particular perspectives along the boulevard. Regency asserts that the City must compensate it for the allegedly lessened value of its billboards pursuant to inverse condemnation principles, as well as under state law…

2Cases cited71 opinions

  1. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning AgencySupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Selby Realty Co. v. City of San BuenaventuraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  3. People v. RicciardiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Klopping v. City of WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Bacich v. Board of ControlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943

66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Martinez v. Brownco Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Brodie v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Brehm v. 21st Century InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  4. Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP v. LujanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. Sviridov v. City of San Diego, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API