HFH, LTD. v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
TOBRINER, J.
We face in these mandate proceedings1 the narrow issue of whether a complaint alleging that a zoning action taken by a city council reduced the market value of petitioners’ (hereafter plaintiffs) land states a cause of action in inverse condemnation; we conclude that it does not. We also face numerous amici, some of whom urge on us significant changes in the law of liability, and compensation in public land use regulation; we have concluded that neither the state and federal Constitutions nor public policy compel or counsel these changes.
We take the facts in this case from…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Dalehite v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Fletcher v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by127 opinions
- City of Beaumont v. BouillionTexas Supreme Court · 1995
- Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1990
- Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Hensler v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Agins v. City of TiburonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
122 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.