San Diego County Water Authority v. Mireiter
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WIENER, Acting P. J.
In eminent domain cases, the “date of valuation” generally precedes the date of trial at which the value of the property is determined. The question here is whether a jury, in determining the amount of compensation due the property owner, is required to consider facts discovered during this lag which tend to reduce the property’s fair market value. We conclude that the language of Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.320, which defines “fair market value” as “the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by a seller . . . and a buyer . . . each…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
- County of Los Angeles v. FausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Phillips v. Kimwood MacHine CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1974
- City of Los Angeles v. City of San FernandoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- City of Los Angeles v. PomeroyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. AndaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- Emeryville Redevelopment Agency v. Elementis Pigments, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
- Calaway v. Brown CountyCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1996
- STATE BY COM'R OF TRANSP. v. SheinNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1995
- San Diego Metro. Transit Development Bd. v. Rv CommunitiesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007