Furey

Furey v. City of Sacramento

Good Law
592 F. Supp. 463·1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24549
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 3, 1984CIV.S-74-571 RARCalifornia9,591 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ramirez, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The question presented by the instant litigation is this: is a landowner who improves his property solely on his own initiafive and in the expectation of realizing a substantial profit entitled to the restitution of the cost of the improvements when the local zoning authority declines to rezone the property in a manner necessary to realize that profit?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The plaintiff, as trustee, is the legal owner of certain real property located within the limits of the City of Sacramento. The real property in question is now and at all relevant times has been zoned and used for agricultural purposes.

In the late 1950s and the early 1960s both the plaintiff and the defendants confidently expected the plaintiff’s land to be transformed from agricultural uses to residential and commercial uses within a foreseeable period of time. This expectation is reflected in the numerous planning documents published by the defendants roughly contemporaneously with the events described herein. Because the conversion of the land from agricultural uses to residential and commercial uses would have required the installation of sewers, proceedings were…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.