Dusek

Anaheim Redevelopment Agency v. Dusek

Good Law
193 Cal. App. 3d 249·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1888·239 Cal. Rptr. 319
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 30, 1987Docket Nos. G002324, G002546California5,832 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallin, J.

The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (Agency) appeals a judgment dismissing its complaint in eminent domain to acquire the Duseks’ Pickwick Hotel. Appalled by what they contend was judicial usurpation of a legislative function, the Agency and amici curiae argue the trial court erred by granting the Duseks’ motion for judgment (Code Civ. Proc., §631.8) based on the failure to include specific findings of fact in a resolution of necessity. In this case of first impression we must decide whether the Legislature intended to impose a duty on all condemning agencies to make specific factual findings in their resolutions of necessity. We also tackle the thorny issues of whether such resolutions are adjudicative or legislative and whether our characterization is consistent with the legislative intent.

The Agency passed a resolution to acquire the Pickwick Hotel to eliminate blight and for redevelopment purposes and thereafter filed its complaint in eminent domain. The statutorily required resolution of necessity found and determined: Public interest and necessity require the proposed project; the proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with…

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.