Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Locklin v. City of Lafayettegreen2 sentences2014(Belair, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 565 .) The Supreme Court has since followed the Belair rule of reasonableness, refining its application in Locklin, supra, 7 Cal.4th 327 , and Bunch, supra, 15 Cal.4th 432 . 2014(Belair, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 565 .) The Supreme Court has since followed the Belair rule of reasonableness, refining its application in Locklin, supra, 7 Cal.4th 327 , and Bunch, supra, 15 Cal.4th 432 . | 1 | 4 |
Bunch v. Coachella Valley Water Districtgreen2 sentences1997(Bunch v. Coachella Valley Water Dist. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 203, 216-217 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 513 ] (Bunch I).) Bunch I opined that Belair's analysis applied to all cases involving unintentional water runoff, whether they involved facilities designed to keep water within its natural course or designed to divert water safely away from a potentially dangerous natural flow. 1997(Bunch v. Coachella Valley Water Dist. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 203, 216-217 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 513 ] (Bunch I).) Bunch I opined that Belair's analysis applied to all cases involving unintentional water runoff, whether they involved facilities designed to keep water within its natural course or designed to divert water safely away from a potentially dangerous natural flow. | 1 | 1 |
Souza v. Silver Development Co.green2 sentences1989Belair holds that establishing the existence of substantial causation requires a showing that the flood control facility in question failed to function within its design capacity or otherwise as intended and that such failure bore “ ‘ “a substantial cause-and-effect relationship excluding the probability that other forces alone produced the injury” [citations]’ ” to the damages suffered by the property owners. ( Belair, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 559-562, quoting from Souza v. Silver Development Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 165, 171 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 146 ].) 4 Under the Belair analysis, establishing t 1989Belair holds that establishing the existence of substantial causation requires a showing that the flood control facility in question failed to function within its design capacity or otherwise as intended and that such failure bore “ ‘ “a substantial cause-and-effect relationship excluding the probability that other forces alone produced the injury” [citations]’ ” to the damages suffered by the property owners. ( Belair, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 559-562, quoting from Souza v. Silver Development Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 165, 171 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 146 ].) 4 Under the Belair analysis, establishing t | 1 | 1 |
Keys v. Romleygreen2 sentences1989(See Keys v. Romley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 396, 409-410 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 412 P.2d 529 ].)” (Belair, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 566 .) 5 Quoting favorably from a seminal law review treatise on the subject of inverse condemnation, Belair cautioned that “[Reasonableness, in this context, is not entirely a matter of negligence, but represents a balancing of public need against the gravity of private harm.” (Belair, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 565-566, quoting from Van Alstyne, Inverse Condemnation: Unintended Physical Damage (1969) 20 Hastings L.J. 431 , at p.455.) On its face, the Belair opinion applies to the si 1989(See Keys v. Romley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 396, 409-410 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 412 P.2d 529 ].)” (Belair, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 566 .) 5 Quoting favorably from a seminal law review treatise on the subject of inverse condemnation, Belair cautioned that “[Reasonableness, in this context, is not entirely a matter of negligence, but represents a balancing of public need against the gravity of private harm.” (Belair, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 565-566, quoting from Van Alstyne, Inverse Condemnation: Unintended Physical Damage (1969) 20 Hastings L.J. 431 , at p.455.) On its face, the Belair opinion applies to the si | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control District
green
2 sentences2014(Belair, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 565 .) The Supreme Court has since followed the Belair rule of reasonableness, refining its application in Locklin, supra, 7 Cal.4th 327 , and Bunch, supra, 15 Cal.4th 432 . 2014(Belair, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 565 .) The Supreme Court has since followed the Belair rule of reasonableness, refining its application in Locklin, supra, 7 Cal.4th 327 , and Bunch, supra, 15 Cal.4th 432 . | 3 | 1989–2014 |
Bunch v. Coachella Valley Water District
green
2 sentences2014(Belair, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 565 .) The Supreme Court has since followed the Belair rule of reasonableness, refining its application in Locklin, supra, 7 Cal.4th 327 , and Bunch, supra, 15 Cal.4th 432 . 2014(Belair, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 565 .) The Supreme Court has since followed the Belair rule of reasonableness, refining its application in Locklin, supra, 7 Cal.4th 327 , and Bunch, supra, 15 Cal.4th 432 . | 3 | 1998–2014 |
Yee v. City of Sausalito
green
2 sentences2014(Id. at p. 447.) However, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal, which opined that Belair's rule of reasonableness “applied to all cases involving unintentional water runoff, whether they involved facilities designed to keep water within its natural course or designed to divert water safely away from a potentially dangerous natural flow.” (Bunch, supra, at p. 439 .) Plaintiffs cite two cases, Yee v. City of Sausalito (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 917 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 595 ] and Marin v. City of San Rafael (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 591 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 750 ], that they claim are “factually analogo 2014(Id. at p. 447.) However, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal, which opined that Belair's rule of reasonableness “applied to all cases involving unintentional water runoff, whether they involved facilities designed to keep water within its natural course or designed to divert water safely away from a potentially dangerous natural flow.” (Bunch, supra, at p. 439 .) Plaintiffs cite two cases, Yee v. City of Sausalito (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 917 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 595 ] and Marin v. City of San Rafael (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 591 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 750 ], that they claim are “factually analogo | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Marin v. City of San Rafael
green
2 sentences2014(Id. at p. 447.) However, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal, which opined that Belair's rule of reasonableness “applied to all cases involving unintentional water runoff, whether they involved facilities designed to keep water within its natural course or designed to divert water safely away from a potentially dangerous natural flow.” (Bunch, supra, at p. 439 .) Plaintiffs cite two cases, Yee v. City of Sausalito (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 917 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 595 ] and Marin v. City of San Rafael (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 591 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 750 ], that they claim are “factually analogo 2014(Id. at p. 447.) However, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal, which opined that Belair's rule of reasonableness “applied to all cases involving unintentional water runoff, whether they involved facilities designed to keep water within its natural course or designed to divert water safely away from a potentially dangerous natural flow.” (Bunch, supra, at p. 439 .) Plaintiffs cite two cases, Yee v. City of Sausalito (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 917 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 595 ] and Marin v. City of San Rafael (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 591 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 750 ], that they claim are “factually analogo | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Holtz v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1997The court doubted whether unintended property damage caused by diversion of water “would elevate the test of inverse condemnation liability to absolute liability, rather than a reasonableness standard.” (Belair, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 567 .) Belair emphasized that in all flood control cases, “. . . the purposes of the Constitution, rather than the rules ‘emanating from the complex and unique province of water law,’ must fix the extent of a public entity’s responsibility. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 567, quoting Holtz, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 306 .) Thus, under Belair’s analysis, to establish whether | 1 | 1997–1997 |