City of Mountain View v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RATTIGAN, J.
This proceeding involves the problem of an apparent overlap between the eminent domain law and the relocation assistance law. A person sued by a public entity in a condemnation action, brought under the eminent domain law for the acquisition of his real property for a public use, may plead and recover the “just compensation” to which he is entitled for the loss of the property. (Cal. Const., former § 14 and present § 19 [see fn. 1, ante]; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1246, 1264.7.) If the acquisition has physically “displaced” him from the property, the relocation assistance law may…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Klopping v. City of WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Sacramento Etc. R.R. Co. v. HeilbronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Parking Authority v. NicovichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Redevelopment Agency v. Del-Camp Investments, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1974
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Beaty v. Imperial Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Superior Strut & Hanger Co. v. Port of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency v. IrvingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Orange County Flood Control District v. Sunny Crest Dairy, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1978
- Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. Richmond Redevelopment AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.