Legal Opinion
City of Corona v. Liston Brick Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 14, 2012No. E053738PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RICHLI, J.
In this eminent domain proceeding, the City of Corona (the City) sought to acquire certain property owned by Liston Brick Company of Corona (Liston). The trial court ruled that all of Liston’s evidence of valuation was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 822, subdivision (a). That subdivision provides that, in an eminent domain proceeding, six specified categories of evidence are “inadmissible . . . and shall not be taken into account as a basis for an opinion as to the value of property
In this appeal, Liston contends that, even assuming its evidence was otherwise…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- People v. RiccardiCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Cummins, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
- Sharon S. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- LaMoure v. LaMoureCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- State Ex Rel. State Public Works Board v. StevensonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
- County of Glenn v. FoleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- L. A. Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth. v. Yum Yum Donut Shops, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
- Los Angeles County Metropolitan etc. v. Yum Yum Donut ShopsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.