Clay

Clay v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1100·21 Cal. App. 3d 577·98 Cal. Rptr. 582
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 29, 1971Civ. 38139California3,481 words

Opinion

Opinion

Compton, J.

Is a homeowner entitled to redress in the courts for the failure of a municipality to take any action by way of either restoring, or vacating with just compensation to the homeowner, a city street which has been washed out by flood, when the circumstances are such that the homeowner’s property has been rendered totally inaccessible?

Plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Clay (hereinafter plaintiffs) claim that they are entitled to such redress and attempted to assert their claim by filing a complaint for damages against the City of Los Angeles (hereinafter defendant), an action which is essentially grounded on the theory of inverse condemnation.

The question is before us on an appeal by plaintiffs from the sustaining of a general demurrer.

Thus the following facts gleaned from the complaint are deemed to be true.

Plaintiffs for many years prior to January 25, 1969, have been owners and occupants of property abutting a street known as Revello Drive, which street was dedicated to the defendant and has been maintained as such for more than 40 years. Plaintiffs’ property known as 17480 Revello Drive is legally described and recorded in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s office.

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.