Rose

Rose v. City of Coalinga

Good Law
190 Cal. App. 3d 1627·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1568·236 Cal. Rptr. 124
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 10, 1987F006329California2,738 words

Opinion

Opinion

Best, J.

Ruben J. Rose and his wife, Pauline V. Rose (appellants) appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of the City of Coalinga (City) in this action for inverse condemnation filed as a result of the destruction of appellants’ building by the City following the Coalinga earthquake which occurred on May 2, 1983.

The central issues are: (1) May an action in inverse condemnation be maintained, or is appellants’ sole remedy in an action in tort? (2) If an action in inverse condemnation can be maintained, are there conflicting inferences that may be drawn by a trier of fact rendering the granting of a summary judgment improper?

Facts

The material facts established by declarations filed in support and opposition to the motion for summary judgment and by excerpts from depositions are not in dispute.

Appellants were the owners of a commercial building located at 155 East Elm Avenue, in the City of Coalinga, when the May 2, 1983, earthquake occurred. They were in Texas at the time of the earthquake and returned to Coalinga May 6, 1983. Because the area surrounding their building was fenced off from the public, they were unable to visit their building when they arrived. The…

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.