Perrin

Perrin v. Los Angeles County Transportation Commission

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 180·42 Cal. App. 4th 1807·50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 488·96 Daily Journal DAR 2552·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1562
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 5, 1996B076697California3,254 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Introduction

In this inverse condemnation action, the plaintiff contended that construction of the Blue Line resulted in substantial impairment of access to her property and sought compensatory damages. Following a bench trial, the court found there had been no substantial impairment of access and entered judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Statement of Facts

Plaintiff Illah Perrin owned two adjacent parcels of improved real property on the east side of Flower Street, between Pico and Venice Boulevards, in the City of Los Angeles. One parcel (Lot 14) contains a one-story building with no setback from the sidewalk. The other parcel (Lot 15) contains a two-story building set back fifty-five feet from the sidewalk. Plaintiff manufactured sportswear and golf bags. The buildings were used for manufacturing and also contained plaintiff’s business offices. An alley (Pembroke Lane) runs along the back of the buildings. There is a 20-by-50-foot paved area between the back of the building on Lot 15 and the alley. The area in front of the building on Lot 15 was used for parking and some deliveries. Deliveries of large items were made to the rear of 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.