Legal Opinion
East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Richmond Redevelopment Agency
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 23, 1979No. Civ. 41715PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KANE, Acting P. J.
The appeal at bench concerns the question whether a publicly held utility company must bear the relocating cost of its underground facilities where the relocation is necessitated by vacation of streets in furtherance of a redevelopment project under the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, 1 § 33000 et seq.).
The parties to this appeal are appellants Richmond Redevelopment Agency (Agency) and City of Richmond (City) and respondent East Bay Municipal Utility District, a public corporation (EBMUD). The pertinent facts indicate that prior to June…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Drainage Commission of New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Hartman Ranch Co. v. Associated Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Redevelopment Agency v. HayesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- New York City Tunnel Authority v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1946
- Martinez v. Socoma Companies, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1974
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Prouty v. Gores Technology GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Meadowbrook-Fairview Metropolitan District v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996