California Eminent Domain Report

Sometimes a public agency ends up abandoning an eminent domain proceeding, even after the property owner or business has moved from the property. Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1268.620, if a defendant “moves from property” and the agency subsequently dismisses the suit, the owner/business may be able to recover payment of all damages proximately caused by the proceeding and its dismissal.  One would think determining whether an owner/occupant has “moved” from the property would not be an issue for dispute.  But a recent unpublished California Court of Appeal ...

The California Court of Appeal has issued a new published decision involving an unusual set of circumstances surrounding an eminent domain and inverse condemnation case.  In Cobb v. City of Stockton, the City filed an eminent domain action to acquire the owner's property; shortly thereafter, the City obtained prejudgment possession and constructed a public roadway on the property.  So far, seems typical.

Here's where things get unusual.  After nine years, the matter had not made its way to trial, and the court dismised the action for "lack of prosecution."  (I'm not entirely sure how ...

Perhaps the most talked-about California eminent domain case in 2009 has been the City of Stockton v. Marina Towers decision, in which the Court struck down the City's right to take property where the resolution of necessity contained no real public purpose (not surprising, since the City did not know at the time it filed the action what it would do with the property).   The case's tag-line usually played out like this:  the "project" was the condemnation itself, which does not qualify as a public purpose.   

This holding was itself somewhat interesting, as California law ...