s for individual landowners, the firm identifies and addresses all potential defenses, as well as all land valuation issues and other compensable categories of damages. The firm has obtained numerous favorable jury verdicts and negotiated settlements for our clients.
| Case Name | Offer and/or Testimony of Appraiser for Condemning Agency | Opinion/Testimony of Appraiser for Property Owner |
Settlement/Verdict |
| State of California, Dept. of Transportation v. Hewitson San Luis Obispo County |
$778,254 | $3,100,000 | $2,313,181 |
| State of California, Dept. of Transportation v. Hyde Tulare County |
$329,311 | $2,280,000 | $1,679,052 |
| State of California, Dept. of Transportation v. Ravenswood Builders San Mateo County No. 244335 |
$339,000 | $2,583,000 | $1,778,300 |
| Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose v. National Dollar Stores Santa Clara County No. 502738 |
$670,000 | $1,250,000 | $1,045,000 |
| Sacramento v. Laguna Business Park Sacramento County No. 512008 |
$587,512 | $1,305,000 | $1,165,926 |
| City of San Jose v. Gateway Associates Santa Clara County No. 656120-124 |
$1,097,000 | $1,519,100 | $1,404,462 |
| City of San Jose v. Almaden Plaza Associates Santa Clara County No. 47336 |
$498,000 | $1,350,000 | $1,088,600 |
| City of Alameda v. Southern Pacific Alameda County |
$616,000 | $1,020,000 | $920,000 |
| Concord Redevelopment Agency v. Maltbie Contra Costa County No. 248815 |
$836,000 | $1,200,000 | $1,110,000 |
| State v. Santa Barbara Paint Co. Santa Barbara County No. 160660 |
$560,600 | $1,450,000 | $1,250,000 |
| State of California, Dept. of Transportation v. River Park Properties Fresno County |
$6,500,000 | $13,050,000 | $10,000,000 |
| Bart v. Southern Pacific San Mateo County No. 303413-416-419 |
$640,000 | $1,600,000 | $1,400,000 |
| Kelly v. United States (Redwood Park District) Court of Claims No. 183-72 |
$376,000 | $800,000 | $646,000 |
| Dept. Parks & Rec., State of California v. Geiger Santa Cruz County No. 67765 |
$83,000 | $160,000 $220,000 |
$205,000 |
| Lake County v. Burzynski Lake County No. 13240 |
$134,000 | $240,000 | $235,000 |
| San Leandro v. Goldenberg Alameda County No. 61516-7 |
$75,000 | $210,000 | $193,000 |
| Redevelopment Agency, City of Sunnyvale v. Ivan Anixter Santa Clara County No. 380889 |
$325,000 | $433,000 | $425,000 |
| Redevelopment Agency, City of Sunnyvale v. Haran, Inc. Santa Clara County No. 380889 |
$ -0- | $62,500 | $62,500 |
Reported Cases
The firm has handled cases which establish important precedents in the body of eminent domain case law in California. For example, Lake County Sanitation Dist. v. Schultz (1978) 85 CA3d 658, was the first case to interpret the statutory attorneys’ fees provision under the Eminent Domain Law and the court awarded the firm’s client a substantial amount of attorneys’ fees. Representing the public agency, Mr. Fitzgerald also tried the case of San Francisco Redevelopment Agency v. Del-Campo (1974) 38 CA3d 836, which holds that acquisition of property under the California Community Development Law for redevelopment purposes is a proper public use. The case also was the first to establish the requirement that an owner plead special damages allegedly caused by a delay or other unreasonable conduct on the part of the public agency.
Other reported cases wherein one of the parties was represented by Fitzgerald Law Offices include Milens of California v. Richmond Redevelopment Agency 665 F.2d 906 (9th Cir. 1992), Richmond Elks v. Richmond Redevelopment Agency 561 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1977); Richmond Redevelopment Agency v. Western Title (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 343; Golden Gate Bridge District v. Muzzi (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 707; Redevelopment Agency v. Herrold (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 1024; People ex rel Dept. of Public Works v. Giumarra Vineyards Corp. (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 309; Eleopoulos v. Richmond Redevelopment Agency 351 Fed.Supp. 63 (1972).
