Legal Opinion

Redevelopment Agency v. Erganian

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 2, 1989No. F009058PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

*168Opinion

STONE (W. A.), Acting P. J.

In this appeal from an order following judgment in condemnation we are called upon to resolve a question specifically left unanswered by the Supreme Court in Redevelopment Agency v. Gilmore (1985) 38 Cal.3d 790 [214 Cal.Rptr. 904, 700 P.2d 794]. When a condemning authority deposits with the court an amount as probable compensation, and the property owner chooses not to withdraw the deposit, what interest is the property owner due upon withdrawal? We conclude the property owner is entitled to interest at the legal rate, rather than the prevailing market rate,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Phelps v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  2. Albrecht v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  3. Redevelopment Agency v. GilmoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  5. United States v. Dorothy Blankinship, United States of America v. Dorothy BlankinshipCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Diversified Properties Co. IIICalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API