(a)The detriment caused by the wrongful occupation of real property, in cases not embraced in Section 3335 of this code, the Eminent Domain Law (Title 7 (commencing with Section 1230.010) of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure), or Section 1174 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is deemed to include the value of the use of the property for the time of that wrongful occupation, not exceeding five years next preceding the commencement of the action or proceeding to enforce the right to damages, the reasonable cost of repair or restoration
of the property to its original condition, and the costs, if any, of recovering the possession.
(b)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes of subdivision (a), the value of the use of the property shall be the greater of the reasonable rental value of that property or the benefits obtained by the person wrongfully occupying the property by reason of that wrongful occupation.
(2)If a wrongful occupation of real property subject to this section is the result of a mistake of fact of the wrongful occupier, the value of the use of the property, for purposes of subdivision (a), shall be the reasonable rental value of the property.
Notes of Decisions
California v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 159 F. Supp. 3d 1182 (S.D. Cal. 2016).
· cites it 8× “has no evidence to support its entitlement to water storage damages; (3) the City cannot prove its claimed real estate damages, which rely upon a redevelopment plan that does not take into account the San Diego Charger’s current lease on the property; and (4) the City’s claim…”
Cassinos v. Union Oil Co., 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2907 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “In its trial brief for the damages phase of this case, Escolle argued that the correct measure of damages is “the fair market value of the disposal rights *1777 taken by Union.”
Watson Land Co. v. Shell Oil Co., 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4986 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “) Civil Code section 3334 reads: “(a) The detriment caused by the wrongful occupation of real property .”
Von Grabe v. Sprint PCS, 312 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (S.D. Cal. 2003).
“” 25 Defendant argues that this case is a business dispute, not a personal injury action, and thus, personal injury (mental or physical) damages are not recoverable as a matter of law. Defendant, however, cites no applicable authority.”
Bailey v. Outdoor Media Grp., 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 322 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “We first address Bailey’s claim regarding the damage award against OMG, which turns on the meaning of the phrase “benefits obtained” as used in Civil Code section 3334. 1. MEASURE OF DAMAGES UNDER CIVIL CODE SECTION 3334 Civil Code section 3334 5 provides in pertinent part: “(a)…”
United States v. S. California Edison Co., 413 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (E.D. Cal. 2006).
“67 license, (4) indemnity under the Project 67 license, (5) breach of Memorandum of Understanding, (6) breach of Special Use Permit, (7) trespass to federal lands, (8) trespass in violation of California Civil Code § 3346, (9) trespass by fire, (10) Trespass under California…”
C&C Props., Inc. v. Shell Pipeline Co. (E.D. Cal. 2019).
· cites it 3× “) In addition, pursuant to California Civil Code § 3334, the 9 jury found that Shell had obtained benefits from its trespass in the amount of $33,901,692.”
Madani v. Rabinowitz (Cal. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “) Civil Code section 3334 provides Madani is entitled, as one measure of damages, to the dollar value of benefits Rabinowitz received by parking his cars on Madani’s driveway.”
Seraji v. Demirjian CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Seraji’s Cross-appeal: Recovery of Attorney Fees Finally, Seraji contends he was entitled to recover attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 3334 (the same statute that provided the basis for the damages awarded by the court as to the ejectment cause of action).”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3334(a) — 1 case
California v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 159 F. Supp. 3d 1182 (S.D. Cal. 2016).
“has no evidence to support its entitlement to water storage damages; (3) the City cannot prove its claimed real estate damages, which rely upon a redevelopment plan that does not take into account the San Diego Charger’s current lease on the property; and (4) the City’s claim…”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3334(b)(2) — 1 case
C&C Props., Inc. v. Shell Pipeline Co. (E.D. Cal. 2019).
“) In addition, pursuant to California Civil Code § 3334, the 9 jury found that Shell had obtained benefits from its trespass in the amount of $33,901,692.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.