Legal Opinion

Cantu v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 9, 1987No. A028889PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LOW, P. J.

—When a public utility does not exercise eminent domain powers to extend a line to serve customers, the right to sue in inverse condemnation does not exist if damage results from the extension. However, other legal remedies may be timely asserted if there are defects in the extension which proximately result in damage and were caused by the utility.

I

Plaintiffs Richard and Shirley Cantu sued Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for damages to their residence, alleging inverse condemnation, trespass and nuisance. The trial court found defendant inversely liable and directed…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Breidert v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Bauer v. County of VenturaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  3. People v. ChevalierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Granone v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  5. Pettis v. General Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1967

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  2. City of Saratoga v. HinzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  3. Virgil Barham v. Southern California Edison Co.California Court of Appeal · 1999
  4. Cequel III Communications I, LLC v. Local Agency Formation Commission of Nevada CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  5. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Southern California Edison Co.California Court of Appeal · 2012

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API