Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Redevelopment Agency
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
TAMURA, J.
The central issue on this appeal is whether a telephone company must bear the cost of relocating underground facilities it maintains in street rights-of-way where relocation is necessitated by vacation of the streets in furtherance of a redevelopment project under the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, § 33000 et seq.).
For reasons expressed below, we have concluded that the utility must relocate its facilities at its own expense.
The pertinent facts are not in dispute. In 1972 the City Council of the City of Redlands approved a redevelopment plan which included…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Drainage Commission of New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Selby Realty Co. v. City of San BuenaventuraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- In Re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- The Housing Authority v. DockweilerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- County of Los Angeles v. Southern California Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1948
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Huntington Park Redevelopment Agency v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- City & County of Denver v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1988
- T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of S.F.California Supreme Court · 2019
- Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Winbond Electronics Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Damé Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1987
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.