49 Cited authorities

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.
526 U.S. 687 (1999) Cited 1,417 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
Dolan v. City of Tigard
512 U.S. 374 (1994) Cited 800 times 63 Legal Analyses
Holding that compelled dedication of an easement for public use would constitute a taking
Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n
483 U.S. 825 (1987) Cited 925 times 75 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
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.
570 U.S. 595 (2013) Cited 296 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
Euclid v. Ambler Co.
272 U.S. 365 (1926) Cited 2,413 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a zoning ordinance that "greatly ... reduce[d] the value of appellee's lands and destroy[ed] their marketability for industrial, commercial and residential uses" constituted a "present invasion of appellee's property rights"
United States v. Miller
317 U.S. 369 (1943) Cited 972 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal court does not apply "the law of the State in which the court sits" to "questions of substantive right—such as the measure of compensation"
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."
Hensler v. City of Glendale
8 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) Cited 301 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"
City of Los Angeles v. Decker
18 Cal.3d 860 (Cal. 1977) Cited 273 times
Articulating independent determination standard of review
Ehrlich v. City of Culver City
12 Cal.4th 854 (Cal. 1996) Cited 118 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the requirement to provide art or a cash equivalent is more akin to traditional land use regulations imposing minimal building setbacks, parking and lighting conditions, landscaping requirements, and other design conditions such as color schemes, building materials and architectural amenities. Such . . . conditions have long been held to be valid exercises of the city's traditional police power, and do not amount to a taking merely because they might incidentally . . . impose a cost in connection with the property."
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 486,856 times 688 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
Section 800 - Lay witness opinion testimony
Cal. Evid. Code § 800 Cited 642 times
Requiring lay opinion testimony be "[h]elpful to a clear understanding of testimony"
Section 19
Cal. Const. art. I § 19 Cited 619 times 4 Legal Analyses
Taking property without just compensation
Section 4651 - Uniform policy on real property acquisition practices
42 U.S.C. § 4651 Cited 152 times
Codifying the scope-of-the-project rule with respect to any "decrease or increase in the fair market value of real property prior to the date of valuation caused by the public improvement for which such property is acquired"

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

49 Cited authorities

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

Holding that compelled dedication of an easement for public use would constitute a taking

Holding that for a development exaction to be constitutional, there must be an "essential nexus" between the valid state interest and the permit condition

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

Holding that a zoning ordinance that "greatly ... reduce[d] the value of appellee's lands and destroy[ed] their marketability for industrial, commercial and residential uses" constituted a "present invasion of appellee's property rights"

Holding that a federal court does not apply "the law of the State in which the court sits" to "questions of substantive right—such as the measure of compensation"

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"

Articulating independent determination standard of review

Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

Requiring lay opinion testimony be "[h]elpful to a clear understanding of testimony"

Taking property without just compensation

Codifying the scope-of-the-project rule with respect to any "decrease or increase in the fair market value of real property prior to the date of valuation caused by the public improvement for which such property is acquired"