City of Perris v. Stamper
California Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
CUÉLLAR, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting.—Neither the federal nor the state Constitution bars the government from taking private property to further a legitimate public purpose, so long as the property owner receives just compensation. (U.S. Const., 5th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 19, subd. (a).) At issue in this case are the rules for calculating precisely what compensation is just.
Under California law, the proper measure of compensation when the government takes private property “is the fair market value of the property taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1263.310.) The fair market value, in turn,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Klopping v. City of WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Merced Irrigation District v. WoolstenhulmeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Continental Development Corp.California Supreme Court · 1997
- Dept. of Trans. v. LundbergOregon Supreme Court · 1992
- Buena Park School District v. Metrim Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1959
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.