For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Government,
Civil Litigation

Jan. 25, 2021

The eminent domain process: trials

In this article and accompanying self-study test, readers will learn about trial procedures in eminent domain cases.

Neli N. Palma

Deputy Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General

1300 I St 12th Fl
Sacramento , CA 95814

Phone: (916) 445-2482

Fax: (916) 324-5397

Email: Neli.Palma@doj.ca.gov

The views expressed here are solely those of the author in her private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of the Department of Justice.

In this article and accompanying self-study test, readers will learn about trial procedures in eminent domain cases. Topics discussed include pretrial in limine motions, evidentiary issues, what questions are ruled on by the judge and which are decided by the jury, and post-trial matters such as the right to abandon property and recovery of litigation expenses.

Introduction

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up

Related Content

Real Property

Saratoga Fire Protection Dist. v. Hackett

Statutory date of valuation may be ignored if property sought through eminent domain substantially increases in value before trial.

Real Property

Regents of the University of California v. Sheily

Dentist failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that he was entitled to compensation for loss of goodwill.

Real Property

City of Perris v. Stamper

In condemnation case, application of 'Porterville' doctrine rather than 'project effect rule' results in reversal and remand.

Civil Procedure

Weiss v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation

Special statutory procedures that govern public entity's exercise of power of eminent domain are inapplicable in inverse condemnation actions, which instead proceed by rules governing ord...

Real Property

Inglewood Redevelopment Agency v. Aklilu

Expert testimony on lost goodwill value of business that redevelopment agency is unable to relocate is properly admitted based on 'cost to create' approach.

Family Law

In the Interest of K.M.T., a child

Father may deduct total child support obligation for other child for purposes of calculating gross income.

Real Property

City of San Diego v. Sobke

Expert testimony based solely on increased expenses following condemnation doesn't establish loss of goodwill.

Constitutional Law

Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego v. Mesdaq

In eminent domain case, court errs in disregarding statutory requirement that date of valuation is date of deposit.

Real Property

Council of San Benito County Governments v. Hollister Inn Inc.

County may take road leading to hotel over private property without considering the alternative of taking neighbor’s property.

Constitutional Law

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. Campus Crusade for Christ Inc.

In eminent domain case, whether or not there is reasonable probability of use change is question of fact for jury.

Real Property

Emeryville Redevelopment Agency v. Harcros Pigment Inc.

Purchases of neighboring properties are inadmissible to establish market value of condemned property.



By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.