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 1 courts 1941–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hillside Water Co. v. City of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2021(See, e.g., Tulare Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore Dist. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 489 , 535–538 [discussing availability of injunctive relief against public use appropriator]; Hillside Water Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1938) 10 Cal.2d 677, 688 [same]; Wright v. Goleta Water Dist. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 74, 90 [“Intervention of a public use does not bar suit by the owner of a water 22Peabody is also factually distinguishable. 2020(See, e.g., Tulare Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore Dist. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 489 , 535–538 [discussing availability of injunctive relief against public use appropriator]; Hillside Water Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1938) 10 Cal.2d 677, 688 [same]; Wright v. Goleta Water Dist. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 74, 90 [“Intervention of a public use does not bar suit by the owner of a water 22Peabody is also factually distinguishable. | 2 | 2 |
Wright v. Goleta Water Districtgreen2 sentences2021(See, e.g., Tulare Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore Dist. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 489 , 535–538 [discussing availability of injunctive relief against public use appropriator]; Hillside Water Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1938) 10 Cal.2d 677, 688 [same]; Wright v. Goleta Water Dist. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 74, 90 [“Intervention of a public use does not bar suit by the owner of a water 22Peabody is also factually distinguishable. 2020(See, e.g., Tulare Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore Dist. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 489 , 535–538 [discussing availability of injunctive relief against public use appropriator]; Hillside Water Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1938) 10 Cal.2d 677, 688 [same]; Wright v. Goleta Water Dist. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 74, 90 [“Intervention of a public use does not bar suit by the owner of a water 22Peabody is also factually distinguishable. | 2 | 2 |
cluster 712220green1 sentence2005Law. 12; accord, Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff (1984) 467 U.S. 229, 245 [ 81 L.Ed.2d 186 , 104 S.Ct. 2321 ] [“Apurely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void.”]; Armendariz v. Penman (9th Cir. 1996, en banc) 75 F.3d 1311, 1321 [no judicial deference afforded where public use finding is demonstrably pretextual]; Cottonwood Christian Center, supra, 218 F.Supp.2d at pp. 1229-1230 [“Defendants’ planning efforts here appear to consist of finding a potential landowner for property that | 1 | 1 |
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiffgreen2 sentences2005Law. 12; accord, Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff (1984) 467 U.S. 229, 245 [ 81 L.Ed.2d 186 , 104 S.Ct. 2321 ] [“Apurely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void.”]; Armendariz v. Penman (9th Cir. 1996, en banc) 75 F.3d 1311, 1321 [no judicial deference afforded where public use finding is demonstrably pretextual]; Cottonwood Christian Center, supra, 218 F.Supp.2d at pp. 1229-1230 [“Defendants’ planning efforts here appear to consist of finding a potential landowner for property that 2005Law. 12; accord, Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff (1984) 467 U.S. 229, 245 [ 81 L.Ed.2d 186 , 104 S.Ct. 2321 ] [“Apurely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void.”]; Armendariz v. Penman (9th Cir. 1996, en banc) 75 F.3d 1311, 1321 [no judicial deference afforded where public use finding is demonstrably pretextual]; Cottonwood Christian Center, supra, 218 F.Supp.2d at pp. 1229-1230 [“Defendants’ planning efforts here appear to consist of finding a potential landowner for property that | 1 | 1 |
City of Los Angeles v. City of Glendalegreen2 sentences1985(City of Los Angeles v. City of Glendale (1943) 23 Cal.2d 68, 80 [ 142 P.2d 289 ].) The rights of a public utility regarding water which it exports to customers located outside the basin area, could not be overlying in character, but are either appropriative or prescriptive. 1985(City of Los Angeles v. City of Glendale (1943) 23 Cal.2d 68, 80 [ 142 P.2d 289 ].) The rights of a public utility regarding water which it exports to customers located outside the basin area, could not be overlying in character, but are either appropriative or prescriptive. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District
green
2 sentences2021(See, e.g., Tulare Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore Dist. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 489 , 535–538 [discussing availability of injunctive relief against public use appropriator]; Hillside Water Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1938) 10 Cal.2d 677, 688 [same]; Wright v. Goleta Water Dist. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 74, 90 [“Intervention of a public use does not bar suit by the owner of a water 22Peabody is also factually distinguishable. 2020(See, e.g., Tulare Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore Dist. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 489 , 535–538 [discussing availability of injunctive relief against public use appropriator]; Hillside Water Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1938) 10 Cal.2d 677, 688 [same]; Wright v. Goleta Water Dist. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 74, 90 [“Intervention of a public use does not bar suit by the owner of a water 22Peabody is also factually distinguishable. | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District v. Wutchumna Water Co.
green
2 sentences1943Dist. v. Wutchumna Water Co., 111 Cal.App. 688 [ 296 P. 933 ].) “Section 17 of the act provides that ‘The use of all the water required for the irrigation of the lands in any district formed under the provisions of this act . . . for . . . beneficial uses, within such district, together with the rights of way for canals and ditches, sites for reservoirs, and all other property required in fully carrying out the provisions of this act is hereby declared to be a public use . . .’ (Italics ours.) It has been held that where the legislature declares a particular use to be a public use the presumpt 1943Dist. v. Wutchumna Water Co., 111 Cal.App. 688 [ 296 P. 933 ].) “Section 17 of the act provides that ‘The use of all the water required for the irrigation of the lands in any district formed under the provisions of this act . . . for . . . beneficial uses, within such district, together with the rights of way for canals and ditches, sites for reservoirs, and all other property required in fully carrying out the provisions of this act is hereby declared to be a public use . . .’ (Italics ours.) It has been held that where the legislature declares a particular use to be a public use the presumpt | 2 | 1941–1943 |
County of San Mateo v. Coburn
green
2 sentences1943(County of San Mateo v. Coburn, 130 Cal. 631 [ 63 P. 78 , 621] ; Contra Costa Coal Mines R. 1941(County of San Mateo v. Coburn, 130 Cal. 631 [ 63 Pac. 78 , 621]; Contra Costa Coal Mines R. | 2 | 1941–1943 |
Redevelopment Agency of Fresno v. Herrold
green
1 sentence2005Section 33500 applies only to attacks on the redevelopment plan as adopted, and not to actions alleging illegal implementation of the plan.” (Redevelopment Agency v. Herrold, supra, 86 Cal.App.3d at p. 1029 , italics added.) To be sure, Herrold is not totally on point; the owner’s challenge was to a public use finding that is explicitly required by our state Constitution, while here the challenge is to a blight finding that might—or might not—be required by the state or federal Constitution. 18 Even so, the underlying *133 common law abhorrence of bait and switch in the redevelopment context p | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.