Pacific Outdoor Advertising Co. v. City of Burbank
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STEPHENS, J.
This appeal is taken from a judgment in favor of the City of Burbank (hereinafter Burbank) on the issue of its liability in an alleged inverse condemnation action brought by plaintiff-appellant Pacific Outdoor Advertising Company (hereinafter Pacific). The principal issue was whether Burbank was liable for allegedly inversely condemning Pacific’s six outdoor advertising structures by “inducing” the termination of Pacific’s lease regarding said structures in its dealings with a third party from whom Burbank wished to lease the land upon which the signs were located. The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Bacich v. Board of ControlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Albers v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- Holtz v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Concrete Service Co. v. State of California Ex Rel. Dept. Pub. Wks.California Court of Appeal · 1969
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Colman v. Utah State Land BoardUtah Supreme Court · 1990
- San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board v. Handlery Hotel, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1999
- Kong v. CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCYCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Lanning v. City of MontereyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Johnston v. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.