Emeryville Redevelopment Agency v. Elementis Pigments, Inc.

Good Law
101 Cal. App. 4th 1083·125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 12·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4611·2002 Daily Journal DAR 10329·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8255
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 9, 2002A090932, A091716, A093126California14,714 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sepulveda, J.

These consolidated appeals arise from a judgment and posttrial orders in an eminent domain proceeding brought by the Emeryville Redevelopment Agency (Agency or plaintiff) to condemn about 13 acres of chemically contaminated land owned by defendant Elementis Pigments, Inc., formerly Harcros Pigments, Inc. (Elementis or defendant). The appeals, and a cross-appeal by Elementis, present numerous questions of eminent domain law. We have concluded that the judgment must be reversed. Specifically, we hold that (1) the Agency’s own purchases of neighboring properties were inadmissible to establish the value of the condemned property; (2) the jury could not consider, and the appraisal witnesses could not rely upon, a recital in a contract for the purchase of a neighboring property, which purported to “apportion” the overall price for the property between two segments divided by a political boundary; (3) it was error to admit, over objection, evidence concerning specific development plans for the property, since no one disputed the highest and best use for it and no other materiality was shown; (4) because it was undisputed that the property must inevitably be adapted to a higher…

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.