§Why CasetextPricing

PERRIS, CITY OF v. STAMPER (To be called and continued to the late May 2016 calendar.)

Respondent’s Opening Brief on the Merits

43 Cited authorities

  1. City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.

    526 U.S. 687 (1999)   Cited 1,412 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]t is settled law that the Seventh Amendment does not apply" in "suits seeking only injunctive relief" or suits seeking only equitable relief

  2. Dolan v. City of Tigard

    512 U.S. 374 (1994)   Cited 800 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding that compelled dedication of an easement for public use would constitute a taking

  3. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n

    483 U.S. 825 (1987)   Cited 925 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for a development exaction to be constitutional, there must be an "essential nexus" between the valid state interest and the permit condition

  4. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.

    570 U.S. 595 (2013)   Cited 293 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court could not condition the grant of land use permits upon the applicant's funding of offsite mitigation projects on public land

  5. San Diego Gas Electric Co. v. Superior Court

    13 Cal.4th 893 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 294 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a negligence claim would be barred by Section 1759 because "an award of damages on that theory would plainly undermine the commission's policy by holding the utility liable for not doing what the commission has repeatedly determined that it and all similarly situated utilities were not required to do."

  6. Hensler v. City of Glendale

    8 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 300 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting claim that a compensable taking of plaintiff's property necessarily occurred when ordinance was enacted because plaintiff conceded the ordinance "did not deny him all economically feasible use of the property"

  7. Emeryville Redevelopment v. Harcros Pigments

    101 Cal.App.4th 1083 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that rule that improvements must be taken into account in determining compensation includes taking into account when improvements decrease the value of the property below its unimproved condition

  8. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California v. Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc.

    41 Cal.4th 954 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 37 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing in a related context that before evidence establishing value can be presented to the jury, that evidence "`"must at least be in accordance with the usual minimum evidentiary requirements, and that which is purely speculative, wholly guess work and conjectural, is inadmissible"'"

  9. Dina v. People ex rel. Department of Transportation

    151 Cal.App.4th 1029 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 32 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding such a use was proper

  10. Escondido Union School Dist. v. Casa Sueños De Oro, Inc.

    129 Cal.App.4th 944 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 29 times
    In Escondido Union School Dist. v. Casa Suenos de Oro, Inc., 129 Cal. App. 4th 944, (2005), a post-MTA case, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal was faced with a final statutory offer by the plaintiff of $180,000.

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 485,423 times   688 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

  12. Section 19

    Cal. Const. art. I § 19   Cited 618 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Taking property without just compensation