Legal Opinion

Hensler v. City of Glendale

California Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 1994No. S032210PublishedCited by 196 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BAXTER, J.

The parties in this case ask the court to determine the statute of limitations applicable to a complaint in inverse condemnation which alleges a taking of real property resulting from the adoption, or application to the plaintiff’s property, of an ordinance enacted pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act. (Gov. Code, § 66410 et seq.) We conclude that an action in inverse condemnation, whether or not joined with an action in administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) challenging the ordinance or its application to the plaintiff’s property, is governed by Government Code…

2Cases cited61 opinions

  1. Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  4. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981

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

3Cited by196 opinions

  1. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates Ltd. PartnershipTexas Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Ehrlich v. City of Culver CityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  5. San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002

191 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