Court Opinion

ID: 9721698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:05:39.484669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:28.180124
License: Public Domain

KINGSLEY, J.
I concur in the judgment in this case, on the facts shown by the record before us; but I think it should be clear that to allow condemnation of a right-of-way on the showing of potential public use herein made is not to say that condemnation of a greater interest in land should be allowed on the same kind of showing.
The history of approval of atomic generating units is not such as to make me as sanguine as my colleagues that the next (third) unit will be approved. But the trial court has held, on facts not here open to question, that the land is fundamentally ranch land. That being so, an unused easement should cause the defendants only minimal damage — damage which, on this record, the trial court could find was off-set by the public benefit. This case stands for no more; on that basis I concur in the judgment of affirmance.
Appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 1, 1973. Tobriner, J., did not participate therein. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.
On June 20, 1973, the Supreme Court granted appellants’ petition for .hearing following the Court of Appeal’s denial of a motion to recall its remittitur and the matter was transferred to the Supreme Court and re-transferred to the Court of Appeal with directions to recall its remittitur and to award costs on appeal to appellants.