Legal Opinion
Twain Harte Associates, Ltd. v. County of Tuolumne
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 11, 1990No. F011310PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DIBIASO, J.
Appellants 1 sued for inverse condemnation and declaratory relief, alleging that the adoption of a Tuolumne County (the County) ordinance rezoning a portion of a parcel of real property they owned constituted a “taking” for which just compensation must be paid. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County, on the ground no taking had occurred and owners had failed to exhaust available “administrative reme dies.” The moving papers, however, disclose the existence of a triable issue of material fact on whether any attempt by owners to secure administrative…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Saldana v. Globe-Weis Systems Co.California Court of Appeal · 1991
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Toigo v. Town of RossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- FSR Brokerage, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Torres v. ReardonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.