Legal Opinion
Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 26, 2016No. B258459PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LUI, J. —
Plaintiff homeowners appeal from a judgment entered after a demurrer to their inverse condemnation complaint was sustained without leave to amend. We affirm because plaintiffs allege only impairment of their views and a speculative risk of fire danger, neither of which constitutes a taking or damaging of their property.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are the owners of homes on Spalding Drive in Beverly Hills. They filed an inverse condemnation action against the City of Beverly Hills (the City), seeking damages and injunctive relief based upon impairment of the views from their backyards…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Moore v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Varjabedian v. City of MaderaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Hayter Trucking, Inc. v. Shell Western E & P, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1993
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Eisen v. Tavangarian, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Mercury Cas. Co. v. City of Pasadena, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Weiss v. People ex rel. Dep't of Transp., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Eisen v. TavangarianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019
- Mercury Casualty Company v. City of PasadenaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.