Legal Opinion
Wildensten v. East Bay Regional Park District
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 11, 1991No. A048056PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BENSON, J.
Plaintiff Mary V. Wildensten appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer to her first amended complaint without leave to amend. The trial court ruled that Wildensten failed to state a cause of action for inverse condemnation. We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
The relevant allegations of Wildensten’s first amended complaint are as follows: “3. That at all relevant times, plaintiff was and is the owner of real property on Rifle Range Road, Contra Costa County. Plaintiff’s property is bordered on the northeast by lands of Wildcat Canyon…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Klopping v. City of WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Albers v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- Reardon v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- DiMartino v. CITY OF ORINDACalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Arreola v. County of MontereyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- City of Pasadena v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Pacific Shores Property Owners Ass'n v. Department of Fish & WildlifeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Ressel v. Scott CountyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.