Legal Opinion
Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board
California Supreme Court
Decided August 26, 1997No. S051847PublishedCited by 91 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CHIN, J.
In this case, we consider the inverse condemnation claim of Earl W. Kavanau, a property owner who prevailed in a prior action against the Santa Monica Rent Control Board (Rent Board) on the ground that the rent control regulations of the City of Santa Monica (the City) violated his right to due process of law. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal order, rejecting Kavanau’s inverse condemnation claim because he *767had not lost “all use of his property.” We disagree that a property owner must lose all use of his property in order to have a viable inverse…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by91 opinions
- Shaw v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Colony Cove Properties v. City of CarsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San JoseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of CarsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Santa Monica Beach, Ltd. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
86 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.