Legal Opinion

Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 3, 2015No. F069145PublishedCited by 8 opinions

[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

  1. Trope v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Hensler v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Toigo v. Town of RossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  5. Honchariw v. County of StanislausCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Honchariw v. County of StanislausDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  2. Honchariw v. County of StanislausCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
  3. Longboy v. Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2024
  4. Matthew Beauschesne v. Ford Motor Company and Does 1 through 10, inclusiveDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2026
  5. Nicholas Honchariw v. County of StanislausCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API