People ex rel. Department of Public Works v. Chevalier, et al.

Supreme Court of California
52 Cal. 2d 299, 340 P.2d 598 (1959)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In an eminent domain proceeding, a public entity's determination of public necessity for a taking is a non-justiciable legislative question, and its finding is conclusive evidence that cannot be challenged in court on grounds of fraud, bad faith, or abuse of discretion.

Facts:

Defendants Richard C. Goodspeed and William A. Hyland owned a corner property in Los Angeles fronting Century Boulevard and Broadway.
A side street, 99th Street, previously ended at the western boundary of the defendants' property.
The State of California constructed the Harbor Freeway nearby, which resulted in the permanent closure of 99th Street's intersection with Olive Street, west of the defendants' land.
This closure landlocked other properties on 99th Street by cutting off their westerly access.
To provide access for the landlocked parcels, the City of Los Angeles, in cooperation with the State, sought to extend 99th Street eastward across the defendants' property to connect it with Broadway.
As part of the same freeway project, the State also sought to extinguish the defendants' own westerly access rights via the now-closed 99th Street.

Procedural Posture:

The State of California initiated an eminent domain action against defendants Goodspeed and Hyland.
After defendants successfully demurred to the State's action, the City of Los Angeles filed a separate eminent domain action against them.
The trial court consolidated the two actions for trial.
At trial, plaintiffs moved to strike the special defenses of fraud, bad faith, and abuse of discretion from the defendants' answer.
The trial court granted the motion to strike the special defenses.
A jury returned a verdict awarding compensation to defendants.
Defendants Goodspeed and Hyland appealed from the judgment of the trial court.

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 a condemning body's legislative determination of public necessity for an eminent domain taking create a justiciable issue when a landowner alleges the determination was the result of fraud, bad faith, or abuse of discretion?

Opinions:

Majority - Spence, J.

No. The conclusive effect accorded by the Legislature to a condemning body’s finding of necessity cannot be affected by allegations of fraud, bad faith, or abuse of discretion. The only constitutional limitations on the sovereign power of eminent domain are that the taking must be for a 'public use' and that 'just compensation' must be paid, both of which are justiciable issues. However, the question of necessity—including the need for the improvement, the choice of a particular plan, or the selection of specific property—is a purely legislative and political determination that is not subject to judicial inquiry. To allow judicial review of necessity would thwart the legislative purpose of making such determinations conclusive and would open the door to endless litigation, delaying essential public improvements. Previous cases suggesting an exception for fraud or bad faith are disapproved, as they improperly confused the distinct concepts of 'public use' and 'necessity'.

Dissenting - McComb, J.

Yes. The judgment should be reversed for the reasons expressed by the District Court of Appeal in its prior opinion in this matter.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the separation of powers in eminent domain law, establishing a bright-line rule that removes the legislative determination of 'necessity' from judicial scrutiny. It significantly strengthens the power of condemning authorities by precluding landowners from challenging the government's motives or wisdom, even with claims of bad faith. The ruling limits a property owner's legal defenses primarily to two grounds: that the taking is not for a legitimate public use or that the offered compensation is not just. This precedent streamlines the condemnation process for public projects by eliminating a major avenue for litigation and potential delays.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: People ex rel. Department of Public Works v. Chevalier, et al. (1959)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"