Overland

Overland v. Superior Court

Good Law
126 Cal. App. 4th 131·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 112·2005 Daily Journal DAR 1190·23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 676·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 893
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 2005B175442California4,371 words

Opinion

Opinion

Klein, J.

Petitioners Mark E. Overland (Overland), Overland & Borenstein LLP (O&B) and Pamela A. Poloski (Poloski) (collectively, petitioners) seek a writ of mandate directing respondent superior court to vacate its order sustaining a demurrer to their first cause of action without leave to amend and to enter an order overruling the demurrer.

The real parties in interest are the Los Angeles County Superior Court and John A. Clarke, the court’s executive officer and clerk (clerk) (collectively, the court defendants).

The issue presented is whether the court defendants’ refusal to pay the petitioners pre-exoneration interest on their cash bail deposits constitutes a taking of private property for public use for which petitioners are entitled to just compensation.

We conclude the court defendants’ refusal to pay petitioners preexoneration interest on their cash bail deposits does not constitute a “taking” because there was no confiscation of private property by the court defendants for a public purpose, or at all. Rather, when petitioners voluntarily deposited cash bail to free the criminal defendants from custody, petitioners entered into contracts with the government by which…

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.