People v. Southern California Edison Co.
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BROWN, J.
The purpose of our eminent domain statutes is obvious. The Legislature undoubtedly envisioned speedy acquisitions and timely compensation. Unfortunately, government agencies and public utilities sometimes *795have other priorities and do not follow the script. Consequently, we must now examine the applicability of one of these statutes to an acquisition that began over 30 years ago and consider whether the trial court properly awarded interest on an eminent domain award from the date of valuation rather than from the date of possession as required by Code of Civil Procedure…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Trope v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- United States v. 50 Acres of LandSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Albrecht v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Woo v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Mt. San Jacinto Community College District v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Escondido Union School District v. Casa Sueños De Oro, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.