City of Perris, Plaintiff and Respondent v. Richard C. Stamper, Defendants and Appellants

Summary

The court held that the constitutional validity of a development dedication requirement is a court-determined mixed question of law and fact, not an issue for the eminent-domain jury. It further held that the project effect rule generally excludes a dedication requirement from valuation when, at the time the requirement was imposed, inclusion of the affected property in the condemnation project was probable, and it remanded for factual and constitutional determinations under that framework. Justice Cuéllar concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing that the constitutional inquiry belongs to the court but rejecting the majority’s additional project-timing limitation.