Opinion

Rose v. State of California

  • 19 Cal. 2d 713
  • 123 P.2d 505
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Mar 4, 1942
Status
Published
Author
Houser
On the bench
Carter, Houser, Gibson
Cited by
314 cases

"The presence of a single compensable injury ... should not be made the basis for a recovery of the total depreciation in value of a landowner's property where it appears that much of the depreciation is attributable to legally noncom-pensable factors."

How later courts described this case

  • "The presence of a single compensable injury ... should not be made the basis for a recovery of the total depreciation in value of a landowner's property where it appears that much of the depreciation is attributable to legally noncom-pensable factors."
  • "A specific provision relating to a particular subject will govern in respect to that subject, as against a general provision, although the latter, standing alone, would be broad enough to include the subject to which the more particular provision relates."
  • "Immunity from suit cannot avail in this instance, and, if no statute exists, liability still exists, because as to this provision the Constitutions are self-executing."
  • “[A] right constitutionally granted cannot be taken away by the failure of the legislature to act.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

HOUSER, J.,

Concurring. — I concur in the judgment of affirmance, but I do not agree with that portion of the majority opinion which holds that damage suffered as the result of diversion of travel is not compensable.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.