Saratoga Fire Protection District v. Hackett

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[A]ny substantial increase in fair market value between the dates of valuation and taking must be paid in order to provide just compensation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Mt. San Jacinto Community College District v. Superior Court
  California Supreme Court· 2007-02-22· cited 22×
• Forest Preserve District v. First National Bank
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2010-05-27· cited 14×
• Redevelopment Agency of San Diego v. Mesdaq
  California Court of Appeal· 2007-08-31· cited 12×
• City of Santa Clarita v. NTS Technical Systems
  California Court of Appeal· 2006-02-03· cited 10×
• City of Scottsdale v. CGP-Aberdeen, L.L.C.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2008-03-06· cited 10×
• Mt. San Jacinto Community College District v. Superior Court
  California Court of Appeal· 2004-04-22· cited 5×
• City of Carlsbad v. RUDVALIS
  California Court of Appeal· 2003-06-10· cited 3×
• Eastern Municipal Water District v. Superior Court
  California Court of Appeal· 2007-11-19· cited 1×
• Golden State Water Co. v. Casitas Municipal Water District
  California Court of Appeal· 2015-04-14· cited 1×
• San Diego Metro. Transit Development Bd. v. Rv Communities
  California Court of Appeal· 2007-12-21
• Golden State Water Co. v. Casitas Municipal Water Dist.
  California Court of Appeal· 2015-05-13
• Tait v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co.
  California Court of Appeal· 2024-06-28

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners
  Supreme Court· 1964-01-13· cited 1,211×
• Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
  Supreme Court· 2001-06-28· cited 859×
• Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1984-05-21· cited 515×
• Bauman v. Ross
  Supreme Court· 1897-05-24· cited 467×
• Trope v. Katz
  California Supreme Court· 1995-10-02· cited 378×
• United States v. Fuller
  Supreme Court· 1973-01-16· cited 197×
• Redevelopment Agency v. Gilmore
  California Supreme Court· 1985-06-13· cited 81×
• Merced Irrigation District v. Woolstenhulme
  California Supreme Court· 1971-03-31· cited 72×
• Citizens Utilities Co. v. Superior Court
  California Supreme Court· 1963-06-13· cited 70×
• Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Continental Development Corp.
  California Supreme Court· 1997-08-25· cited 62×
• McCoy v. Union Elevated Railroad
  Supreme Court· 1918-06-03· cited 55×
• Tehama County v. Bryan
  California Supreme Court· 1885-11-25· cited 25×
• Leaf v. City of San Mateo
  California Court of Appeal· 1984-01-23· cited 23×
• Cal. Southern R. R. v. Kimball
  California Supreme Court· 1882-07-25· cited 22×
• People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Murata
  California Supreme Court· 1960-12-13· cited 21×
• County of Los Angeles v. Hoe
  California Court of Appeal· 1955-12-20· cited 18×
• Redevelopment Agency v. Maxwell
  California Court of Appeal· 1961-06-27· cited 15×
• City of Los Angeles v. Tower
  California Court of Appeal· 1949-03-30· cited 14×
• People v. Southern California Edison Co.
  California Supreme Court· 2000-04-20· cited 11×
• COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGCY v. Force Electronics
  California Court of Appeal· 1997-06-04· cited 11×