McCullough

City of Hollister v. McCullough

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 662·26 Cal. App. 4th 289·31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 415·94 Daily Journal DAR 9119·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4967
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 3, 1994H010609California4,210 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mihara, J.

— Plaintiff initiated an eminent domain action to acquire a portion of defendants’ parcel (hereafter the take) for street, sewer and utilities purposes. The trial court granted plaintiffs in limine motion to exclude all evidence of severance damages. After a contested court trial on the value of the take, the court found that the take was worth $22,000. Although defendants presented evidence of the rental value of the take during plaintiffs prejudgment possession of it, the trial court rejected defendants’ claim for the prejudgment rental value of the take. On appeal, defendants do not contest the trial court’s finding on the value of the take. However, defendants claim that the trial court prejudicially erred in excluding all evidence of severance damages and in failing to award defendants either the prejudgment rental value of the take or prejudgment interest from the date plaintiff took possession of the take. For the reasons expressed below, we reverse.

Facts

Defendants own a rectangular parcel of essentially unimproved land in downtown Hollister. The dimensions of defendants’ parcel are 299.28 feet from its east to its west border and 170 feet from its north to its…

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.