Legal Opinion
People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Acosta
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 26, 2009No. C059064PublishedCited by 4 opinions
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HULL, J.
In this eminent domain proceeding, defendants Mercedes Acosta and Hammer 99, Inc. (hereafter collectively Acosta), the operator of a gas station and minimart on a portion of the condemned property whose franchise was terminated as a result of the condemnation, sought an award of damages for lost goodwill pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.510. (Unspecified section references that follow are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) Plaintiff Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the condemner, asserted section 1263.510 is preempted by the Petroleum Marketing Practices…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La CuestaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. GuerraSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. BradshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- William C. Brach, Cross-Appellant v. Amoco Oil Company, a Maryland Corporation, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
- Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Continental Development Corp.California Supreme Court · 1997
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Schmidt CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2014
- People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Tracy Joint Unified School District v. PomboCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. SchmidtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014