Legal Opinion
Beaty v. Imperial Irrigation District
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 28, 1986No. D003325PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*901Opinion
STANIFORTH, J.*
This case presents an issue of first impression: whether inverse condemnees are entitled to relocation assistance benefits under the Relocation Assistance Act (Act) (Gov. Code, § 7260 et seq.).1
Facts
The petitioners (hereafter sometimes collectively referred to as Beaty) owned land which was flooded by the rising level of the Saltón Sea. They brought inverse condemnation actions against the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District (Districts) alleging the Districts caused the flooding which resulted in a taking of property without just…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Associated Home Builders of Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. City of LivermoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Selby Realty Co. v. City of San BuenaventuraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- People v. RicciardiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Weeks v. Baker & McKenzieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Decker v. City of Imperial BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Aguilar v. Association for Retarded CitizensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.