Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus
California Court of Appeal
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FRANSON, J.
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred when it applied the 90-day statute of limitations contained in Government Code section 66499.37 1 to his inverse condemnation action and concluded the action was untimely. Plaintiff argues California law allows him to postpone bringing a complaint for just compensation until after he successfully challenged the local government’s land use decision in a mandamus proceeding.
We conclude that the 90-day statute of limitations in section 66499.37 applies to the inverse condemnation action. (Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Trope v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Hensler v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Toigo v. Town of RossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Honchariw v. County of StanislausCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Honchariw v. County of StanislausDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
- Honchariw v. County of StanislausCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
- Longboy v. Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2024
- Matthew Beauschesne v. Ford Motor Company and Does 1 through 10, inclusiveDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2026
- Nicholas Honchariw v. County of StanislausCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.