Legal Opinion
City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 13, 2009No. C054495PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BUTZ, J.
California’s eminent domain law permits acquisition of property only for “a particular use,” to wit: a “proposed project.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1240.020, 1240.030.) A public entity desiring to condemn private property must pass a “resolution of necessity” (§ 1240.040) that describes the proposed project and contains findings that the proposed project is necessary for the greater public good (§ 1240.030).
This is a case of “condemn first, decide what to do with the property later.” Soon after its city council passed nondescript, amorphous resolutions of necessity approving the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Kelo v. City of New LondonSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Klopping v. City of WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Cincinnati v. VesterSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- City of Cincinnati v. Vester. Same v. Richards Same v. ReakirtSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- City of Lincoln v. BarringerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- California School Boards Ass'n v. State Board of EducationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional Park DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- City of Los Angeles v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- BOROUGH OF GLASSBORO VS. JACK GROSSMAN (L-0075-18, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2019
- City of Fargo v. WielandNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2019
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.