Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Continental Development Corp.
California Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
KENNARD, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
Without any good reason for doing so, the majority abandons California’s adherence to a long-established rule of American law followed by most other states. The rule in question operates in the field of just compensation for property taken for use by the government, specifically in cases where the government appropriates only a *723portion of a landowner’s parcel of real property. In such cases, the landowner receives, in addition to compensation for the portion taken, compensation for damages to the remainder not taken. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1263.310,…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- United States v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- United States v. River Rouge Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Bacich v. Board of ControlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- United States v. CorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Reardon v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.