Legal Opinion
Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority
California Supreme Court
Decided September 23, 1985No. L.A. 31869PublishedCited by 93 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
REYNOSO, J.
We are asked to resolve two questions: whether a public entity lacking the power of eminent domain may nonetheless be liable in inverse condemnation; and, whether a plaintiff may elect to treat commercial airport noise and vibrations as a continuing, rather than a permanent, nuisance. For the reasons set forth below, we answer both questions in the affirmative.
Plaintiffs are homeowners who live adjacent to defendant Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport. The airport became a public entity in 1978 when it was purchased by the three cities pursuant to Government Code section 6500…
2Cases cited51 opinions
- Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning AgencySupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- United States v. DickinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Nestle v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by93 opinions
- Hensler v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1991
- Lawrence C. Bieneman v. City of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988
- CAMSI IV v. Hunter Technology Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1991
- Russo Farms, Inc. v. Vineland Board of EducationSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1996
88 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.