In the past month or so, the California Supreme Court has granted review in two previously covered cases (on the issues as described in the Court's pending issues summary):
City of Perris v. Stamper (Rev. Granted Nov. 13, 2013): This
case presents the following issues: (1) In this eminent domain case,
was the constitutionality of the dedication requirement—that the city
claimed it would have required in order to grant the property owner
permission to put the property to a higher use—a question that had to be
resolved by the jury pursuant to article I, section 19, of the
California Constitution? (2) Was the dedication requirement a “project
effect” that the eminent domain law required to be ignored in
determining just compensation?
Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District (Rev. Granted, Oct. 16, 2013): This case presents the following issue: Is a prevailing defendant in an action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) required to show that the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless in order to recover ordinary litigation costs?
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's Not a Debate
Taylor v. Tesla , No. A168333 (D1d4 Aug. 8, 2024) Plaintiffs in this case are also members of a class in a race discrimination class action ...
-
RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi , No. A143781 (D1d3 Sept. 29, 2017) In this real estate warranty case, the court affirms a summary judgment in ...
-
Pollock v. Superior Court , No. B321229 (D2d1 Jul. 31, 2023) Back in 2019, the Legislature amended Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280 to inc...
No comments:
Post a Comment