Sheily

Regents of University of California v. Sheily

Bad Law
122 Cal. App. 4th 824·19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 84·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1599·2004 Daily Journal DAR 12006·34 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20102
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 16, 2004B161797California3,282 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

Aaron H. Sheily, D.D.S. (Dr. Sheily, or appellant) appeals from a judgment denying his claim for compensation for goodwill in a bifurcated condemnation action brought by the Regents of the University of California (Regents, or respondent). The action was brought to acquire by condemnation Dr. Sheily’s leasehold interest in an office building in the City of Santa Monica. In a bench trial, the court concluded that Dr. Sheily failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to compensation for loss of goodwill, under the requisites of Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.510. (All further statutory references are to that code, unless another is cited.) We conclude that his challenges to the trial court’s determination are not well taken, and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

The following summary is taken from the record on appeal. In reviewing the record we are required to resolve all factual matters supported by citations to the record in favor of respondent. (See Cochran v. Rubens (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 481, 486 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 ], and numerous cases collected in 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 359, p.…

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.