City of Berkeley v. Von Adelung, 214 Cal. App. 2d 791 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963). · Go Syfert
Search
City of Berkeley v. Von Adelung, 214 Cal. App. 2d 791 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1997 · …general to all property owners in the neighborhood, and not special to the landowner. at p. 793 ≈ altered
40 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: LOS ANGELES CTY. METRO. TRANSP. v. Continental Dev. (cal, 1997-08-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) LOS ANGELES CTY. METRO. TRANSP. v. Continental Dev.
Cal. · 1997 · confidence medium
A landowner may not recover for damages to the remainder that are "general to all property owners in the neighborhood, and not special to [the landowner]." ( City of Berkeley v. Von Adelung (1963) 214 Cal. App.2d 791, 793 [ 29 Cal. Rptr. 802 ]; accord, People v. Gianni (1933) 130 Cal. App. 584, 588-589 [ 20 P.2d 87 ].) The examples of compensable damages listed by this court in Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California, supra, 70 Cal.2d 282, 295 , and repeated by the majority are ones that typically will arise out of some direct and unique relationship (often the relationship of contiguity) be…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Continental Development Corp.
Cal. · 1997 · confidence medium
A landowner may not recover for damages to the remainder that are “general to all property owners in the neighborhood, and not special to [the landowner].” (City of Berkeley v. Von Adelung (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 791, 793 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 802 ]; accord, People v. Gianni (1933) 130 Cal.App. 584, 588-589 [ 20 P.2d 87 ].) The examples of compensable damages listed by this court in Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California, supra, 70 Cal.2d 282, 295 , and repeated by the majority are ones that typically will arise out of some direct and unique relationship (often the relationship of contiguity) be…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Volunteers of America
Cal. Ct. App. · 1971 · confidence medium
Wks. v. Ramos (1969) 1 Cal.3d 261, 264, fn. 2 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 792 , 460 P.2d 992 ], as discussed below]; City of Berkeley v. Von Adelung (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 791, 793 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 802 ]; 4A Nichols, Eminent Domain (Rev. 3d ed. 1971) § 14.1[1], p. 14-6 et seq., § 14.21[1], p. 14-53 et seq. and § 14.2462, fns. 6-10, and accompanying text, pp. 14-276/14-278; 1 Orgel, Valuation Under Eminent Domain, §§ 56-57, pp. 257-266; and Van Alstyne, Intangible Detriment (1969) 16 U.C.L.A.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People ex rel. Department of Public Works v. Home Trust Investment Co.
Cal. Ct. App. · 1970 · confidence medium
Modem transportation requirements necessitate continual improvements of streets and relocation of traffic.” (People v. Ayon, 54 Cal.2d 217, 223 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 151 , 352 P.2d 519 ]; City of Berkeley v. Von Adelung, 214 Cal.App.2d 791, 793 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 802 ].) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that access to appellants’ property was not substantially impaired and therefore not compensable.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People Ex Rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. HOME TRUST INV.
Cal. Ct. App. · 1970 · confidence medium
Modern transportation requirements necessitate continual improvements of streets and relocation of traffic." ( People v. Ayon, 54 Cal.2d 217, 223 [ 5 Cal. Rptr. 151 , 352 P.2d 519 ]; City of Berkeley v. Von Adelung, 214 Cal. App.2d 791, 793 [ 29 Cal. Rptr. 802 ].) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that access to appellants' property was not substantially impaired and therefore not compensable. (6) Appellants next contend that it was error to allow respondent's expert to testify to sales of raw acreage because they were not "comparable" to the lots in question.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People Ex Rel. Dep't of Pub. Works v. Di Tomaso
Cal. Ct. App. · 1967 · confidence medium
Department of Public Works v. Presley (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 309, 314 [ 48 Cal. Rptr. 672 ]; City of Berkeley v. Von Adelung (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 791, 793 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 802 ].) The purported regulation here, revocation of location of place of ingress and egress fixed by contract, is not within the situations covered in the latter cases.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) County of Santa Clara v. Curtner
Cal. Ct. App. · 1966 · confidence medium
Dept. of Public Works v. Elsmore (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 809, 811-812 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 613 ] ; City of Berkeley v. Von Adelung (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 791, 793 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 802 ].) In other words, insofar as the city’s plan proposes to take or restrict more of the condemnees ’ property than would be necessary to alleviate the damage to that property alone in order to relieve “critical access and public safety problems” which arise from the construction or proposed construction of improvements on property other than that of the condemnees, the latter must look to the city rather than the co…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cox v. State of California (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 1970 · signal: see also · confidence low
Public Works v. Elsmore (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 809, 811 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 613 ] (italics ours); see also, City of Berkeley v. Von Adelung (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 791 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 802 ]; People v. Emerson (1936) 13 Cal.App.2d 673 [ 57 P.2d 955 ]; Sanitation Dist.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CITY OF BERKELEY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A. B. VON ADELUNG, Defendant and Appellant
Civ. 20312.
California Court of Appeal.
Apr 8, 1963.
214 Cal. App. 2d 791
1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 2676
Irvine P. Dungan for Defendant and Appellant., Eobert T. Anderson, City Attorney, and Eobert P. Berk-man, Assistant City Attorney, for Plaintiff and Eespondent.
Draper.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
DRAPER, P. J.

In this eminent domain proceeding, plaintiff city acquired 9.48 square feet of defendant’s residential lot. Value of the land was stipulated to be $20. Defendant sought $3,000 in severance damages. The court, sitting without a jury, rejected defendant’s offer of proof as to severance damages, and entered judgment only for value of the land taken. Defendant appeals.

Defendant’s lot has a frontage of 50 feet on La Loma Avenue, and of about 115 feet on Buena Vista Avenue. The property taken rounds off the approximately right angle corner of the lot. At the point of the corner angle, the taking is “only one to two feet at the most” in depth, and tapers down to nothing at each end of a curve some 16 feet long. The house is set back on the property, no part of it is affected by the taking, and it need not be relocated on the lot.

The project of which this taking is a part covers 10 to 15 blocks of roadway, closes a street some four blocks from defendant’s lot, and widens La Loma by narrowing the sidewalk (not on defendant’s land). The city also will ban parking in front of defendant’s lot. Defendant offered to prove that the[*793] effect of the project as a whole would be to approximately triple traffic past defendant’s lot, with resultant increase in fumes and traffic noises.

A property owner is entitled to “damages which will accrue to the portion not sought to be condemned, by reason of its severance from the portion sought to be condemned, and the construction of the improvement in the manner proposed” (Code Civ. Proe., § 1248, subd. 2). But he “has no constitutional right to compensation simply because the streets upon which his property abuts are improved so as to affect the traffic flow” thereon (People v. Ayon, 54 Cal.2d 217, 223-224 [5 Cal.Rptr. 151, 352 P.2d 519]). Moreover, he cannot recover for those damages caused by the manner in which the project is to be constructed or operated on the lands of others, but is limited to damages caused by the operation of the improvement on his land alone (People v. Symons, 54 Cal.2d 855, 861 [9 Cal.Rptr. 363, 357 P.2d 451]; County Sanitation District No. 2 v. Averill, 8 Cal.App.2d 556, 561 [47 P.2d 786]).

At most, defendant’s offered proof would show only that the project as a whole would increase traffic flow past his lot. He offered nothing to show that such increase would be either effected or affected by the taking of a small bit of his property to round off one corner. Rather, it follows in large part from modification of traffic regulations, minor widening of La Loma by taking narrow strips of land of other owners, and closing of a street four blocks away from defendant’s land. Under the eases cited above, the claimed severance damages are not recoverable. Moreover, the asserted injury is not compensable because it is general to all property owners in the neighborhood, and not special to defendant (People v. Gianni, 130 Cal.App. 584, 588 [20 P.2d 87]).

Objection to the offer of proof was properly sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Salsman, J., and Devine, J., concurred.