Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    California Supreme Court Petition: S173448 – Denied Without Opinion
    California Supreme Court Petition: S173448 – Denied Without Opinion
    California Supreme Court Petition: S173448 – Denied Without Opinion
    Ebook42 pages37 minutes

    California Supreme Court Petition: S173448 – Denied Without Opinion

    By James Constant

    4/5

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    California Supreme Court Petition – S173448 – Eminent Domain Case Denied Without Opinion. Case covers issues of just compensation, State laws and practice, date of value, judgment notwithstanding jury verdict, right to take, and validity of laws and practice.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherJames Constant
    Release dateAug 7, 2013
    ISBN9781301121168
    California Supreme Court Petition: S173448 – Denied Without Opinion
    Author

    James Constant

    writes on law, government, mathematics and science, as they are and as they should be

    Read more from James Constant

    Related to California Supreme Court Petition

    Titles in the series (3)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Real Estate Law For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    Related categories

    Reviews for California Supreme Court Petition

    4/5

    1 rating0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      California Supreme Court Petition - James Constant

      Petition For Review of Appeal Court’s Decision

      Skipping Constitutional Mandates

      By James Constant

      Smashwords Edition

      Copyright © 2012 by James Constant

      Smashwords Edition, License Notes

      This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW OF APPEAL COURT'S DECISION

      Petitioner James Constant, in propria persona, respectfully petitions this honorable court for review of the appeal court's decision. On 5/13/09, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two Opinion (O) reversed the judgment in Case E046012 (costs) and affirmed the judgments in Cases E044802 (Non constitutional and constitutional claims) and E045320 (Motion to Dismiss under Section 1268.020)1. A Petition for Rehearing filed on 5/22/09 was denied.

      I. STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

      This case presents serious and urgent questions as to the constitutional application of California's eminent domain laws which could affect many cases throughout California. The issues presented are:

      1. After one of two co-owners settles before trial, does just compensation require that the non-settling owner receive the total jury award?

      2. Does just compensation require

      A. a determination of the constitutional claim instead of making just compensation depend on State statutory provisions 1268.010 et. seq., Instruction CACI 3515, judicial discretion, and Codes 663, 1005 and 1008?

      B. An objective comparison between authorities and State statutory provisions and State and Federal constitutional mandates to insure the neutrality of authorities and codes?

      C. dismissing the case (1) if valuation and payment are after taking? (2) when the State's Summary of Appraisal falls short of the statutory requirements? (3) if the deposit is inadequate?

      D. setting the date of value at the time of trial when the delay in bringing the case to trial within the 1 year statutory period was not the fault of defendants?

      E. setting the JNOV aside when (1) the State's Summary of Appraisal and the Resolution of Necessity determined 100% damage to the remainder? (2) petitioner was ruled not qualified to testify as an expert? (3) in entertaining a JNOV the court makes credibility determinations, weighs the evidence, adopts all evidence favorable to the moving party (State) that the jury is not required to believe, and disregards evidence admitted at trial favoring the non-movant (petitioner)?

      3. Did the trial court's rulings on right to take issues, on compensation issues, on trial issues, and its post trial denial of petitioner's motion for a new trial, granting of the State's Motion For Judgment Not withstanding Verdict (JNOV), denial of Motion to Set Aside Judgment, judgment awarding petitioner half the trial court's JNOV award, and the denial of Motion to Dismiss The Eminent Domain Proceeding deprive petitioner of the just compensation provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions and of the equal treatment provision

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1