Legal Opinion
People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 1, 2012No. C069391PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*1508Opinion
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
This petition for writ of mandate by the Department of Transportation (DOT) arises from an eminent domain action. DOT accepted the property owners’ final demand for compensation several days before the scheduled trial date, resulting in a stipulated judgment. Upon motion by the property owners, the trial court awarded litigation expenses to them under Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410.1 DOT filed this petition to challenge the award of litigation expenses. As we shall explain, we agree with DOT that the trial court’s award of litigation expenses is reviewable…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
- American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Redevelopment Agency v. GilmoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
- Southern Pacific Co. v. OppenheimerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Howeth v. Coffelt, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Gassner v. Stasa, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Gassner v. StasaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
- Hartnett v. San Diego County Office of Education CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2013
- Howeth v. CoffeltCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017