Legal Opinion
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Continental Development Corp.
California Supreme Court
Decided August 25, 1997No. S051436PublishedCited by 55 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WERDEGAR, J.
The taking of private property in eminent domain is constrained by the California Constitution, which provides in relevant part that “[p]rivate property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 19; see also U.S. Const., Amends. V, XIV.) By statute, the owner of property acquired by eminent domain is entitled to the fair market value of the property taken. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1263.010, 1263.310.)1 When the property taken is part of a…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- United States v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Olson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Bauman v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- United States v. River Rouge Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- City of San Diego v. D.R. Horton San Diego Holding Co.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Emeryville Redevelopment Agency v. Elementis Pigments, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
- Red Mountain, LLC v. Fallbrook Public Utility DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Bookout v. State of California Ex Rel. Department of TransportationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.