City of Corona v. Liston Brick Co.

Good Law
145 Cal. Rptr. 3d 702·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 873·208 Cal. App. 4th 536·2012 WL 3291719
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 14, 2012No. E053738California2,746 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Richli, J.

In this eminent domain proceeding, the City of Corona (the City) sought to acquire certain property owned by Liston Brick Company of Corona (Liston). The trial court ruled that all of Liston’s evidence of valuation was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 822, subdivision (a). That subdivision provides that, in an eminent domain proceeding, six specified categories of evidence are “inadmissible . . . and shall not be taken into account as a basis for an opinion as to the value of property

In this appeal, Liston contends that, even assuming its evidence was otherwise inadmissible under Evidence Code section 822, subdivision (a), it should have been allowed to use it in its cross-examination of the City’s valuation expert. It relies on State of Cal. ex rel. State Pub. Wks. Bd. v. Stevenson (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 60 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 742 ]. We conclude, however, that Stevenson does not create a “cross-examination exception” to Evidence Code section 822, subdivision (a). At most, it merely allows a party to an eminent domain proceeding to impeach an expert with a prior inconsistent valuation by that expert. Liston did not offer any such prior inconsistent valuation. Hence, we…

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.