Legal Opinion

Perrin v. Los Angeles County Transportation Commission

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 5, 1996No. B076697PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Breidert v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1964
  2. People v. AyonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  3. San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board v. Price Co.California Court of Appeal · 1995
  4. United California Bank v. People Ex Rel. Department of Public WorksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. Brumer v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  2. Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota Metropolitan CouncilCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API