We previously reported on the recent California Court of Appeal district split as to what standard of review should apply in utility takeover condemnation cases as it pertains to more necessary public use challenges, and specifically whether courts are to exercise independent judgment or whether a public agency's determination is subject to substantial deference. This district split stems from the 2024 South San Joaquin Irrigation District v. PG&E case (holding that courts should exercise independent judgment) and the 2025 Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchos Water case (holding that courts should give deference to a public agency's findings).
Following the Town of Apple Valley decision, a petition for review was submitted to the California Supreme Court. On April 23, 2025, the California Supreme Court granted Apple Valley Ranchos Water's petition for review on one issue:
When a public entity files an eminent domain action seeking to take privately held public utility property, and the owner objects to the right to take, what is the proper standard of judicial review for the trial court to apply to determine whether the property owner has rebutted the presumptions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1245.250, subdivision (b) and 1240.650, subdivision (c)?
A California Supreme Court determination on this issue will not only resolve the dispute between conflicting Court of Appeal decisions, but it will clarify important questions of law that concern both the taking of private property and the provision of services to the public. It is not very often that the California Supreme Court takes up an eminent domain case, so we will follow the briefing closely and report on any final decision.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
