City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders
32 Cal. 3d 60, 646 P.2d 835, 184 Cal. Rptr. 673 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A city's power of eminent domain extends to the taking of intangible property, such as a professional sports franchise. The determination of whether the stated purpose for the taking, such as preventing a team's relocation, constitutes a valid 'public use' is a question of fact that requires a full evidentiary hearing.
Facts:
- The Oakland Raiders, a professional football team and a franchise member of the National Football League (NFL), entered into a licensing agreement in 1966 to use the Oakland Coliseum.
- The agreement included several three-year renewal options, which the Raiders exercised for multiple terms.
- After contract negotiations for a renewal failed, the Raiders did not exercise their option for the season commencing in 1980.
- The Raiders then announced their intention to move the football team to Los Angeles.
- In response to this announcement, the City of Oakland initiated an eminent domain action to acquire the Raiders' franchise.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Oakland filed an action in a California trial court to acquire the Oakland Raiders franchise by eminent domain.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Raiders, dismissing the City's action.
- The City of Oakland (appellant) appealed the summary judgment to the California Supreme Court, where the Oakland Raiders were the respondents.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California's eminent domain law permit a city to take intangible property, specifically a professional football franchise, for the public purpose of preventing the team from relocating?
Opinions:
Majority - Richardson, J.
Yes. California's eminent domain law authorizes a city to acquire any property, including intangible property like a professional sports franchise, so long as it is for a valid public use. The concept of 'public use' is broad and dynamic, encompassing recreation and public enjoyment, and whether the specific taking of a sports franchise to prevent its relocation serves such a use is a factual question that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. California statutes provide the broadest possible definition of property subject to condemnation, and historical precedent confirms that intangible assets, including franchises, are condemnable. Because providing for public recreation is a legitimate government function, the City must be given the opportunity at a full trial to present evidence demonstrating that its proposed acquisition constitutes a valid public use.
Concurrence - Feinberg, J.
This opinion concurs in the judgment to reverse and remand, and expresses agreement with much of the Chief Justice's concurring and dissenting opinion without providing separate reasoning.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Bird, C. J.
Yes. While the City's claimed power is novel, troubling, and potentially boundless, current law compels this result. The judiciary must defer to legislative determinations of what constitutes a 'public use,' and recreation has long been recognized as such. Courts may only intervene if the city's action is arbitrary, capricious, or a gross abuse of discretion. On the limited record of a summary judgment motion, such a finding is not possible. Despite serious misgivings about the wisdom and potential for abuse of a government taking a private business solely to prevent its relocation, there is no constitutional or statutory ground to bar the action at this stage; any remedy must come from the Legislature, not the courts.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the recognized scope of eminent domain in California by affirming that 'property' includes intangible assets like a professional sports franchise. It cemented the principle that the determination of a valid 'public use' is a fact-intensive inquiry, making it difficult to challenge such takings on purely legal grounds at the pleading or summary judgment stage. The ruling empowered municipalities to use condemnation in novel ways for economic development and cultural retention, sparking a national debate on the limits of government power over private enterprise. Consequently, businesses considering relocation from cities facing economic challenges were put on notice that eminent domain could be used as a tool to compel them to stay.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders (1982)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"