Oliver

Oliver v. AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 1028·76 Cal. App. 4th 521·90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 491·99 Daily Journal DAR 12003·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9332
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 29, 1999C029233California5,118 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kolkey, J.

After an existing 110-foot cellular telephone transmission tower on their neighbors’ property was replaced by one that was approximately 20 feet taller, plaintiffs Melvin E. Oliver and Brigitte M. Oliver brought this action against their neighbors, John J. and Joyce A. Permann (the Permanns), various cellular telephone companies, and the County of Butte (the County), claiming inverse condemnation, nuisance, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, suppression of fact, and 4 other causes of action.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Permanns and the following cellular telephone companies: AT&T Wireless Services, Cellular One, and McCaw Cellular Communications.

The published portion of this opinion addresses the issues of whether the construction of a cellular transmission tower on a neighbor’s property, in accordance with approvals from the County and the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), gives rise to causes of action for inverse condemnation and nuisance by the adjoining property owners by reason of the transmission tower’s “looming” appearance, which has purportedly decreased the value of their property.

Significantly, any remedy…

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.