Legal Opinion

Valenta v. County of Los Angeles

California Supreme Court

Decided August 20, 1964No. L. A. No. 27655PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.

This case involves a claim of inverse condemnation for damages to plaintiffs’ property resulting from a cul-de-sac. Although plaintiffs’ property lies in an unincorporated, rather than incorporated, area, we explain why we have concluded that the principle of substantial impairment of access, as expressed in Breidert v. Southern Pac. Co. (1964) ante, p. 659 [39 Cal.Rptr. 903, 394 P.2d 719], which there applies to an incorporated area, is equally applicable here.

Plaintiffs are the owners of one-half of a quarter section of land in the small rural community of Vincent, an unincorporated area of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Breidert v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Tift County v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1963
  4. Leverone v. WeakleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Levee Dist. No. 9 v. FarmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. WassermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  2. James v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Romero v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  4. State v. HastingsIndiana Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Miro v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API