Real Property Law
California Case Summary Update: February 2026 Real Property Case Summaries
February 2025
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Helping Attorneys Get Excellent Results
Publisher: California Case Summaries™: Know More. Win More.
Mediator at ADR Services, Inc.: Business, employment, insurance, probate, real property and torts cases.
To schedule, contact one of Monty’s case managers Haward Cho, haward@adrservices.com, (213) 683-1600, or Rachael Boughan, rboughan@adrservices.com, (619) 233-1323.
Trial Mentoring™: Trial training and preparation.
Trial Alchemy™: Learn from Civil Jury Trial Experts. Available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and YouTube.
California Case Summaries™: California attorneys can win more cases by always knowing the new published civil in their practice areas. California Case Summaries™ makes this easy with one-paragraph case summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil case published by California courts in monthly issues, quarterly issues, annual issues, or all three. Individual Attorney and Law Firm Unlimited (lets the firm send summaries to every lawyer) subscriptions are available. To subscribe, click here.
Here are the case summaries from last month:
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Eminent Domain
Mendocino Railway v. Meyer (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 389982: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment for defendant, following a bench trial, concluding that plaintiff was not a common-carrier public utility entitled to exercise eminent domain and, even if it were, it failed to satisfy the statutory eminent-domain requirements (including public use and least private injury), and its order awarding attorney fees to defendant. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and fee award, concluding that plaintiff proved it was a common-carrier public utility under California law and also proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the taking satisfied Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.030. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding compensation. (C.A. 1st, published December 9, 2025, published January 7, 2026.)
Environment
City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 100754: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a writ petition challenging the certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) and approval of the development of an industrial warehouse complex to be located on undeveloped land within city limits. The trial court denied petitioner’s CEQA and Water Code writ petition challenging the certification of the EIR and approval of the project. The Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting petitioner’s arguments that the EIR’s water supply assessment was legally deficient (including alleged failures to disclose actual purchased quantities, place-of-use restrictions, curtailment risks, and the effect of related contract litigation) and also rejected petitioner’s Water Code claims, concluding that the EIR and water-supply analysis complied with applicable requirements. (C.A. 3rd, January 14, 2026.)
Landlord-Tenant
De Paolo v. Rosales (2026) _ Cal.App.5th Supp. _ , 2025 WL 4082591: The Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment for plaintiff, following a bench trial, in an unlawful detainer action. The trial court concluded that defendant Jenny Rosales’s (defendant) right to occupy Unit 106 was contingent on her resident-manager employment with plaintiffs, and that additional defendant Richard Charlemagne (the father of defendant’s children who moved into the apartment after defendant moved in) had no independent tenancy, and it awarded plaintiff possession and restitution of the premises while canceling/forfeiting any rental/lease rights claimed by defendants. The appellate division affirmed, concluding that substantial evidence supported that defendants were not tenants but employee/licensee occupants whose right to possession ended upon defendant Rosales’s lawful termination, and it rejected defendants’ notice and Tenant Protection Act arguments (including the claim that the termination notice was void for lack of the Tenant Protection Act “California law” notice and for being 30 days rather than 60). (Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, filed December 22, 2025, published January 27, 2026.)
******
Trial Alchemy™ by Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
In this monthly podcast Monty interviews outstanding plaintiff and defendant civil trial lawyers, and civil trial judges, who are members of the American Board of Trial Advocates. The podcast is a great way for civil trial lawyers, whether they’ve tried no cases or many cases, to learn from civil jury trial experts:
To listen to the podcast on Spotify, click here.
To listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, click here.
To watch and listen to the podcast on YouTube, click here.