Eminent Domain Report

We’ve come a long way from the viral “I’m not a cat” court appearance video.  Now, beyond manipulating video appearances with filters, technology allows for the creation of entire legal documents using generative AI.  However, as recent case law highlights, beyond the whimsy generated by the cat video, there are real risks associated with the uninformed or undisciplined use of these tools. 

In Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing (Cal. Ct. App., 1st. App. Dist., June 11, 2026), the First District affirmed sanctions against attorneys who filed a brief with fabricated case ...

In 2024, the Supreme Court upended decades of California precedent when it held that legislatively enacted development impact fees must satisfy the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” tests established in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, respectively. However, the Supreme Court did not decide whether the legislatively enacted fee program challenged by Sheetz actually failed to comply with Nollan / Dolan. Instead, it remanded that issue back to the California courts so that they could address the issue in the first ...

Two articles in Nossaman’s California Water Views – 2026 Outlook highlight a shifting inverse condemnation liability landscape in California—one that carries important implications for eminent domain professionals, water suppliers, utilities, public agencies and infrastructure owners alike.

Recent case law suggests that inverse condemnation exposure for water suppliers may be expanding in meaningful ways. Courts are increasingly willing to entertain claims where property owners can show they were “singled out” or disproportionately impacted by public ...