City of Mountain View v. Superior Court

Good Law
126 Cal. Rptr. 358·1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1647·54 Cal. App. 3d 72
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 29, 1975Civ. 36941California5,281 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rattigan, J.

This proceeding involves the problem of an apparent overlap between the eminent domain law and the relocation assistance law. A person sued by a public entity in a condemnation action, brought under the eminent domain law for the acquisition of his real property for a public use, may plead and recover the “just compensation” to which he is entitled for the loss of the property. (Cal. Const., former § 14 and present § 19 [see fn. 1, ante]; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1246, 1264.7.) If the acquisition has physically “displaced” him from the property, the relocation assistance law may entitle him to receive certain specified benefits from the condemning public entity. These benefits may include payment of his actual moving expenses or related losses caused by the acquisition of the property, or a “fixed relocation payment” in lieu of such moving expenses or losses. The question presented here is whether he may seek to recover a “fixed relocation payment” in the public entity’s condemnation action itself, as part of—or in addition to—the “just compensation” which he is entitled to recover therein under the eminent domain law.

The question arises from the following procedural…

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.