-25--25-
The Raiders’ basis for recovery in their supplemental brief
was Cal. Civ. Proc. Code sec. 1268.620 (West 1982), which allows
property owners to recover for economic injuries suffered as a
result of the pendency of eminent domain proceedings that are
abandoned or fail. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code sec. 1268.620 (West
1982) provides in part:
If, after the defendant moves from property in
compliance with an order or agreement for possession or
in reasonable contemplation of its taking by the
plaintiff, the proceeding is dismissed with regard to
that property for any reason or there is a final
judgment that the plaintiff cannot acquire that
property, the court shall:
* * * * * * *
(b) Make such provision as shall be just for the
payment of all damages proximately caused by the
proceeding and its dismissal as to that property.
[Emphasis added.]
This section allows for the recovery of all damages, not just
injury to goodwill, caused by the eminent domain proceeding.
The complaint in inverse condemnation, incorporating the
notice of claim and setting forth the inverse condemnation cause
of action, reiterated the damages stated in the notice of claim.
The November 10, 1988, agreement also settled the Raiders’
inverse condemnation claim. Inverse condemnation is not a cause
of harm, but is merely a theory or remedy for vindication of a
property owner’s cause of action against a public entity for
damage to his property. City of Mill Valley v. Transamerica Ins.
Co., 98 Cal. App. 3d 595, 600, 159 Cal. Rptr. 634, 637 (1979).
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011