Barthelemy v. Orange County Flood Control District
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RICHLI, J.
Under Klopping v. City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39 [104 Cal.Rptr. 1, 500 P.2d 1345] (cited hereafter as Klopping), a landowner may recover in inverse condemnation for losses caused by a condemning entity’s unreasonable conduct prior to actual condemnation. This case presents the issue whether damages recoverable under Klopping include expenses incurred in purchasing and maintaining a new location for an ongoing business for the purpose of mitigating an anticipated loss of goodwill when the existing location is condemned. On the present facts, we conclude such expenses are…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Selby Realty Co. v. City of San BuenaventuraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Klopping v. City of WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Breidert v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1964
- Valencia v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Jordan v. TalbotCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board v. Handlery Hotel, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1999
- Kong v. CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCYCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Redevelopment Agency of San Diego v. MesdaqCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Joseph M. Jackovich Revocable Trust v. State, Department of TransportationAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
- Joffe v. City of Huntington ParkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.