Legal Opinion
State of California v. Meyer
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 25, 1985No. B005540PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STONE, P. J.
May a landowner, defendant in eminent domain proceedings, properly allege “delay damages” for the first time in a memorandum of costs after the public entity condemner has filed an abandonment of the eminent domain action? He may not. Appellants landowners appeal from an order taxing costs made after judgment of dismissal upon the state’s abandonment of eminent domain proceedings. They contend the trial court erred in: (1) disallowing delay damages alleged for the first time in the cost bill; (2) awarding inadequate attorneys’ fees due to failure to apply a “lodestar…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, Manhattan-Ward, Incorporated v. Grinnell Corporation, 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc. v. Grinnell CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Klopping v. City of WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Greater Westchester Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- In Re Equity Funding Corp. of America Securities LitigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1977
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- Bergmann v. BoyceNevada Supreme Court · 1993
- Flannery v. California Highway PatrolCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1992
- Boyd v. Oscar Fisher Co.California Court of Appeal · 1989
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.