City of Hollister v. McCullough
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MIHARA, J.
— Plaintiff initiated an eminent domain action to acquire a portion of defendants’ parcel (hereafter the take) for street, sewer and utilities purposes. The trial court granted plaintiffs in limine motion to exclude all evidence of severance damages. After a contested court trial on the value of the take, the court found that the take was worth $22,000. Although defendants presented evidence of the rental value of the take during plaintiffs prejudgment possession of it, the trial court rejected defendants’ claim for the prejudgment rental value of the take. On appeal,…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Ayres v. City Council of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- People v. La MacChiaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Redevelopment Agency v. GilmoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Seeley v. SeymourCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Metropolitan Water District v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- City of Perris v. StamperCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
- People v. Southern California Edison Co.California Supreme Court · 2000
- CONTRA COSTA WATER DIST. v. Vaquero Farms, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1997
- City of Livermore v. BacaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- State Route 4 Bypass Authority v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.