Rutherford

Rutherford v. State of California

Good Law
188 Cal. App. 3d 1267·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1320·233 Cal. Rptr. 781
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 9, 1987D003131California7,743 words

Opinion

Opinion

Work, J.

E. C. Rutherford, S. P. Rutherford, and Julia Ann Reutter (R utherford) appeal a judgment in favor of the State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, and several individuals for injunctive and declaratory relief, inverse condemnation, violation of constitutional rights pursuant to 42 United States Code section 1983 and violation of rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Rutherford contends the trial court erred in finding Fish and Game Code section 1603 constitutional on its face and as applied; collateral estoppel did not apply; there was no federal or civil rights violation; and the officers were immune for their actions as there was no malice shown. We conclude these contentions are meritless and affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

Rutherford owns approximately the north one-half of the San Felipe Valley, consisting of meadow and range land historically used for grazing cattle and farming. The specific area of this large parcel involved in this litigation is a meadow which is a natural watershed and water storage area; however, at no time during Rutherford’s ownership of…

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.