Eminent Domain Report

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 A recent unpublished opinion from the Third District Court of Appeal, Rainey v. Nevada Irrigation District, 2026 Cal.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 ...

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. … 

When a property owner suffers damage as a result of the actions of a public agency or public improvement, the owner typically pursues typical tort causes of action against the agency, along with a claim for inverse condemnation. While liability for the tort claims is decided by a jury, liability for inverse condemnation is determined by a judge. So what happens when both claims are pursued simultaneously -- should the judge rely on the jury’s determination of causation, or should the judge make his or her own findings? 

Recently in Amedee Geothermal Venture I v. Lassen Municipal ...