Posts from 2026
Court Turns on the Tap for Potential Inverse Condemnation Claims Against Water Suppliers

Courts have historically denied inverse condemnation claims by property owners against water suppliers where the quality of water or chemicals used allegedly caused corrosion or damage to water pipes.  However, under a recent line of cases, that bar to recovery may be shifting.  In a new unpublished decision, Micheli v. City of Fresno (2026 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1027), the Court permitted a large-scale, class action inverse condemnation lawsuit to proceed where homeowners claimed the City’s water supply corroded their pipes and caused health-related concerns. 

Background ...

Governmental Approval of a Private Development Cannot Trigger a Takings Claim

When the government approves a private development that diminishes neighboring property values, can a property owner maintain a takings claim?  According to a recent California court decision, the answer is no – governmental approval of a private project cannot trigger inverse condemnation liability. 

Background

In De La Cruz v. City of Los Angeles (2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26413), a new six-story apartment building was being constructed next to the plaintiff’s residence.  The development was approved without a full environmental impact report based on a CEQA exemption for ...

Bifurcation of Inverse Condemnation Liability Can Be Dispositive of Remaining Tort Claims

When a lawsuit involves both inverse condemnation claims and other tort claims, trial courts often bifurcate the proceedings. A recent unpublished opinion from the Third District Court of Appeal, Rainey v. Nevada Irrigation District, 2026 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 231, addresses what happens when findings made in the first phase resolve factual issues common to the claims reserved for the second phase.

Background

Two neighboring property owners sued the Nevada Irrigation District, alleging that water leaking and seeping from the District’s irrigation ditch caused landslides ...

The Anatomy of an Eminent Domain Case in Washington State

In Washington State, when a public agency determines it needs to acquire property for a public project, the agency will work directly with the private property owner to negotiate a purchase price for the property rights needed. However, if the agency reaches an impasse in the negotiations with the property owner, the public agency may turn to its eminent domain power and initiate a condemnation lawsuit. A condemnation lawsuit triggers the formal legal process for the agency to take private property for a public purpose without the owner’s consent in exchange for payment of just ...

Public Agency Cannot Sue for Inverse Condemnation for Its Own Improvements 

This seems like common sense, but a public agency cannot pursue an inverse condemnation cause of action for damages suffered from its own public improvements. Yet that is exactly what the County of Santa Cruz recently attempted against another local public agency. The Court denied leave to amend to add an inverse condemnation cause of action and left unanswered a significant policy question on whether a public agency can pursue a claim for inverse condemnation at all, or whether inverse condemnation only applies to damages to private (not public) property. … 

Eminent Domain Report is a one-stop resource for everything new and noteworthy in eminent domain. We cover all aspects of eminent domain, including condemnation, inverse condemnation and regulatory takings. We also keep track of current cases, project announcements, budget issues, legislative reform efforts and report on all major eminent domain conferences and seminars in the United States.

Stay Connected

RSS RSS Feed

Categories

Archives

View All Nossaman Blogs
Jump to Page

We use cookies on this website to improve functionality, enhance performance, analyze website traffic and to enable social media features. To learn more, please see our Privacy Policy and our Terms & Conditions for additional detail.