Helix Land Co. v. City of San Diego

Good Law
147 Cal. Rptr. 683·1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1731·82 Cal. App. 2d 932·82 Cal. App. 3d 932
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 19, 1978Civ. 14802California5,675 words

Opinion

Opinion

Staniforth, J.

We confront here the single issue of whether Helix Land Company (Helix), owners of land in the Tia Juana River Valley, can state a cause of action in inverse condemnation or nuisance against defendants City of San Diego, its counsel and certain of its officers (City), and/or the State of California, its Secretary of the Resources Agency and Director of State Parks (State) for their various actions or inactions in land use control which, Helix argues, resulted in the deprivation of all economic use of their property.

Helix’s 13-count complaint sought damages and equitable relief from defendants on a variety of legal premises. General demurrers to all counts were sustained without leave to amend. On appeal, Helix has “elected to proceed” on inverse condemnation and nuisance theories only.

Facts

We assume for purposes of this proceeding the truth of any properly pleaded factual allegations contained in the complaint. (Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 487 P.2d 1241 ].) However, since the demurrers were sustained without leave to amend, we consider other relevant matters of which the trial court could have taken notice. (Evid. Code, § 452.) Where a…

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.