Legal Opinion
City of San Diego v. Neumann
California Supreme Court
Decided December 20, 1993No. S029018PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PANELLI, J.
When property acquired by eminent domain is part of a larger parcel, compensation must be awarded for the injury, if any, to the remainder (Cal. Const., art. I, § 19; U.S. Const., 5th Amend.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1263.410, subd. (a)). Such compensation is commonly called severance damages. When the property taken is but part of a single legal parcel, the property owner need only demonstrate injury to the portion that remains to recover severance damages. The question presented here is whether, and under what circumstances, separate but contiguous legal parcels in common…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Kimball Laundry Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Sharp v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1948
- Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
- Sacramento Etc. R.R. Co. v. HeilbronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- City of San Diego v. D.R. Horton San Diego Holding Co.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Emeryville Redevelopment Agency v. Elementis Pigments, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
- City of Ripon v. SweetinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- San Diego Metro. Transit Dev. Bd. v. CushmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Metropolitan Water District v. Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.