Legal Opinion
Redevelopment Agency v. Gilmore
California Supreme Court
Decided June 13, 1985No. L.A. 31891PublishedCited by 79 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRODIN, J.
We confront an issue created by the sharp rise in market rates of interest during recent years, When a public agency con*794demns property and exercises its statutory right to take possession before the condemnation price is set or fully paid, does the “just compensation” which the Constitution requires include interest at prevailing market rates rather than a lower “legal” rate specified in the Eminent Domain Law? We conclude that it does.
Facts*
Defendants Walter L. Gilmore, Jr., Pamela A. Gilmore, George W. Strattan, Howard L. Hudson, and Frances P. Hudson appeal from the…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Catlin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Kimball Laundry Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by79 opinions
- 20th Century Insurance v. GaramendiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Customer Co. v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Smith v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Continental Development Corp.California Supreme Court · 1997
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.