Perrin v. Los Angeles County Transportation Commission
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
VOGEL (C. S.), P. J.
Introduction
In this inverse condemnation action, the plaintiff contended that construction of the Blue Line resulted in substantial impairment of access to her property and sought compensatory damages. Following a bench trial, the court found there had been no substantial impairment of access and entered judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
Statement of Facts
Plaintiff Illah Perrin owned two adjacent parcels of improved real property on the east side of Flower Street, between Pico and Venice Boulevards, in the City of Los Angeles. One parcel…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Breidert v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1964
- People v. AyonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board v. Price Co.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- United California Bank v. People Ex Rel. Department of Public WorksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Brumer v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
3Cited by2 opinions
- Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota Metropolitan CouncilCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003