52 Cal. 2d 299 - People v. Chevalier’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

111 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . [T]he questions of the necessity for making a given public improvement, the necessity for adopting a particular plan therefor, or the necessity for taking particular property, rather than other property, for the purpose of accomplishing such public improvement, cannot be made justiciable issues even though fraud, bad faith, or abuse of discretion may be alleged in connection with the condemning body’s determination of such necessity. To hold otherwise would not only thwart the legislative purpose in making such determinations conclusive but would open the door to endless litigation, and perhaps conflicting determinations on the question of ‘necessity’ in separate condemnation actions brought to obtain the parcels sought to carry out a single public improvement. We are therefore in accord with the view that where the owner of land sought to be condemned for an established public use is accorded his constitutional right to just compensation for the taking, the condemning body’s ‘motives or reasons for declaring that it is necessary to take the land are no concern of his.’ (County of Los Angeles v. Rindge Co., supra, 53 Cal.App. 166, 177 [ 200 P. 27 ], aff’d Rindge Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 [ 43 S.Ct. 689 , 67 L.Ed. 1186 ].)””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 203 Cal. App. 2d 523 - County of Los Angeles v. Bartlett · 193 Cal. App. 2d 799 - Reid v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Works

2. ““Defendants finally contend that the court erred in denying admission of an architect’s sketch showing a proposed improvement of their land. Defendants sought to show thereby that their property in one single piece, without the street bisection, would be suitable and valuable for building a motel and restaurant project, and that the severance ruined the prospect of such a development. It is true that evidence of a proposed use may be relevant, not to enhance damages but to show that the proposed use is feasible and, as such, might enter into a determination of the market value. (Laguna Salada etc. Dist. v. Pacific Dev. Co., 119 Cal.App.2d 470, 476 [ 259 P.2d 498 ].) However, all the experts agreed that the land was suitable and valuable, before but not after the condemnation, for the building of a motel and restaurant project, and that this would have been a feasible plan for the use of the property. It therefore appears that the sketch of a specific plan or development could have no other purpose than to attempt to enhance damages, and its rejection was proper. (People v. La Macchia, 41 Cal.2d 738, 751 [ 264 P.2d 15 ]; City of Los Angeles v. Kerckhoff-Cuzner Mill & Lbr. Co., 15 Cal.App. 676, 677-678 [ 115 P. 654 ].) ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Alexander

3. ““ ‘. . . In general, courts have nothing to do with questions of necessity, propriety, or expediency in exercises of the power of eminent domain. They are not judicial questions ... it is within the exclusive province of the Legislature to pass upon the question of necessity for appropriating private property for that use, unless the question of necessity has been made a judicial one, either by the Constitution or by statute. ’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 199 Cal. App. 2d 359 - Barry v. Department of Public Works