This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Perspective

Dec. 15, 2011

Law surrounding Klopping claims now less muddy

Klopping claims require actual, targeted interference with specific property rights. By Mona M. Nemat of Best Best & Krieger LLP


By Mona M. Nemat


For decades, public entity lawyers have been advising their clients to walk the tight rope between disseminating information about potential projects to those who may be affected, and balancing that with clear statements that no condemnation decision has been made. For years, these same public entity lawyers have been defending claims of unreasonable precondemnation conduct, i.e. Klopping claims, because property owners insist that the dis...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up