California Court of Appeal

Commercial nursery owner defendants are not entitled to damages for diminution in value to tangible business assets, suffered as a consequence of accelerated urbanization not directly or proximately caused by the road project or the taking in and of itself.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/10/2003
• Published 06/10/2003

Judges

• O'ROURKE, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
•  Ronald Ball, City Attorney;  Matteoni, Saxe & O'Laughlin, Norman E. Matteoni, Peggy M. O'Laughlin, San Jose;  Asaro, Keagy, Freeland & McKinley, Roscoe D. Keagy and Richard R. Freeland, San Diego, for Plaintiff and Appellant., McDonough, Holland & Allen and Richard G. Rypinski, Oakland, for the cities and towns of Alameda, Bakersfield, Burlingame, Cerritos, Chino, Chula Vista, Coachella, Corte Madera, Cotati, Del Mar, Escondido, Fremont, Hollister, Huntington Beach, Kerman, Laguna Beach, Lakewood, Livermore, Lodi, Los Altos, Monterey, Monterey Park, Novato, Oceanside, Oxnard, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Placentia, Redding, Redlands, Rialto, Ross, Sacramento, San Anselmo, San Buenaventura, San Diego, San Dimas, San Francisco, San Jose, San Luis Obispo, San Ramon, Santa Clara, Santa Paula, Santa Rosa, Signal Hill, Sonoma, Sunnyvale, Tiburon, Tracy, Vacaville and Vista as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron, Gary C. Weisberg, Michael H. Leifer and Ronald M. Cole, Irvine, for Defendants and Respondents.