Legal Opinion
Lee v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 4, 2003No. B155843PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
EPSTEIN, J.
The issue in this action for inverse condemnation and damage to property is when plaintiffs claims accrued. The trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer and dismissed the action based on its conclusion that the action is barred by the statute of limitations and the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 900 et seq., Tort Claims Act).
We conclude the trial court erred. In an action for continuous and repeated damage to real property based on inverse condemnation and nuisance, the cause of action does not accrue until the situation has stabilized. The allegations of the…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1990
- Goodman v. KennedyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1992
- Oakes v. McCarthy Co.California Court of Appeal · 1968
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Ochs v. PacifiCare of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Bookout v. State of California Ex Rel. Department of TransportationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- City of Los Angeles v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Wilkinson v. ZelenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Hauselt v. County of ButteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.