Legal Opinion
Moerman v. State
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 23, 1993No. A057389PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DOSSEE, J.—Plaintiff
Robin R. Moerman alleged the state had damaged his property by relocating tule elk which were destroying his fences and eating the forage intended for his livestock. The trial court granted the state’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Moerman contends the trial court erred, and that as a matter of law, there has been a taking of his property.
We find the tule elk are not instrumentalities of the state nor controlled by the state, and, therefore, there has been no physical taking of Moerman’s property. We will not consider Moerman’s regulatory taking argument…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Yee v. City of EscondidoSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Varjabedian v. City of MaderaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Barrett v. . State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Noe v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Herzberg v. County of PlumasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- City of Pasadena v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Clajon Production Corp. v. PeteraDistrict Court, D. Wyoming · 1994
- Hoogasian Flowers, Inc. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.