Legal Opinion
Paterno v. State
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 10, 1999No. C013846, C016505, C019267PublishedCited by 155 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MORRISON, J.
Property owners sued the State of California (the State, which includes the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District), Reclamation District 784 (the District) and others no longer in the case, seeking damages after a levee failed. Sample plaintiffs (Paterno) lost on some theories, but won on an inverse condemnation (takings) theory. In related appeals, defendants appeal and Paterno cross-appeals. The takings count must be retried because of changes in the law and because Paterno proceeded on an erroneous legal theory. We uphold the jury’s defense verdict on Paterno’s…
2Cases cited76 opinions
- People v. BrevermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Soule v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Foreman & Clark Corp. v. FallonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Nestle v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- People v. FloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by155 opinions
- County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Fassberg Construction Co. v. Housing AuthorityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
- Century Surety Co. v. PolissoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. D.W.California Court of Appeal · 2009
150 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.