In August, I reported on the decision in City of Perris v. Stamper, in which the Court of Appeal weighed in on the ever-shifting line dividing the judge and jury's roles in eminent domain cases. At the time, I poked a bit of fun at a former colleague, Rick Friess, who won the appeal but was still complaining that the Court didn't see everything exactly his way.
Well, it appears that my good friend hasn't quite given up yet. Last week, the California Supreme Court decided to hear the case, meaning Rick will have one more crack at his dedication argument. The Supreme Court is limiting its review to two questions:
Is the constitutionality of an otherwise reasonably probable dedication requirement that a governmental entity claims it would have required in order to grant the property owner permission to put his or her property to a higher use a question that must be resolved by a jury pursuant to article I, section 19 of the California Constitution?
Was the dedication requirement claimed by the City of Perris a "project effect" that the eminent domain law requires to be ignored in determining just compensation?
We'll let you know how it turns out -- and we'll try to get Rick to offer his insights once the final decision comes down. But don't hold your breath; it's likely to be a while before that happens.