Legal Opinion

Hauselt v. County of Butte

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 23, 2009No. C054927PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DAVIS, J. *

This is an action for inverse condemnation in a flood control context. We uphold the judgment that found, with one exception, no inverse condemnation liability. We do so because the trial court, in this bench trial, decided all material issues, and properly found that defendant public entity’s activities met the applicable legal standard—the rule of reasonable conduct (also known as the reasonableness rule).

Background

In 1988, William Hauselt (plaintiff), an experienced property developer, purchased a 94-acre almond orchard about a mile north of Chico, eventually intending to…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Romano v. Rockwell International, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Hensler v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  5. McDougal v. County of ImperialCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Chicago Title Insurance v. AMZ Insurance Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
  2. Hartt v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  3. Pacific Shores Property Owners Ass'n v. Department of Fish & WildlifeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  4. Marriage of James and Christine C. CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2013
  5. Patz v. City of S.D.California Court of Appeal · 2025

3 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