§ 1245.255.Judicial Review of Validity of Resolution
Title 7. Eminent Domain Law · Chapter 4. Precondemnation Activities · Article 2. Resolution of Necessity · Last amended 1978 · Last verified July 29, 2026
In one sentenceSection 1245.255 lets a person with an interest in the property seek judicial review of a resolution of necessity's validity, by writ of mandate before the eminent domain case is filed or by objection to the right to take afterward, and denies the resolution its conclusive effect if gross abuse of discretion affected its adoption or contents.
(a)A person having an interest in the property described in a resolution of necessity adopted by the governing body of the public entity pursuant to this article may obtain judicial review of the validity of the resolution:
(1)Before the commencement of the eminent domain proceeding, by petition for a writ of mandate pursuant to Section 1085. The court having jurisdiction of the writ of mandate action, upon motion of any party, shall order the writ of mandate action dismissed without prejudice upon commencement of the eminent domain proceeding unless the court determines that dismissal will not be in the interest of justice.
(2)After the commencement of the eminent domain proceeding, by objection to the right to take pursuant to this title.
(b)A resolution of necessity does not have the effect prescribed in Section 1245.250 to the extent that its adoption or contents were influenced or affected by gross abuse of discretion by the governing body.
(c)Nothing in this section precludes a public entity from rescinding a resolution of necessity and adopting a new resolution as to the same property subject, after the commencement of an eminent domain proceeding, to the same consequences as a conditional dismissal of the proceeding under Section 1260.120.
Plain-English Summary
This is the property owner's route to challenging a resolution of necessity directly,rather than just being bound by it. Before the public entity commences the eminent domain proceeding, a person with an interest in the described property can petition for a writ of mandate under § 1085. If the entity then files the condemnation case, the court hearing the mandate action will typically dismiss it without prejudice, unless dismissal wouldn't serve the interest of justice. Once the proceeding has already started, the same challenge instead takes the form of an objection to the right to take.
The available ground for that challenge is narrow but significant: a resolution loses its conclusive (or presumptive) effect under § 1245.250 to the extent its adoption or contents were influenced or affected by gross abuse of discretion by the governing body. Ordinary disagreement with the entity's planning choices isn't enough — the standard is a high one.
Even a successful challenge doesn't necessarily end the project. The entity can rescind the flawed resolution and adopt a new one for the same property, though if this happens after the eminent domain proceeding has already begun, it carries the same consequences as a conditional dismissal under § 1260.120 — potentially including an award of the owner's litigation expenses.
Frequently Asked Questions
How can a property owner challenge a resolution of necessity?
By petition for a writ of mandate under § 1085 before the eminent domain proceeding begins, or by objection to the right to take once the proceeding has started.
What has to be shown to defeat the resolution's conclusive effect?
That the resolution's adoption or contents were influenced or affected by gross abuse of discretion by the governing body — a demanding standard, not mere disagreement with the entity's choices.
If I file a writ of mandate action and the entity then sues to condemn, what happens to my writ case?
The court will generally dismiss the mandate action without prejudice once the eminent domain proceeding commences, unless the court finds that dismissal wouldn't serve the interest of justice.
Can the entity just fix the problem by adopting a new resolution?
Yes. Nothing prevents the entity from rescinding the resolution and adopting a new one for the same property, though doing so after the proceeding has begun carries the same consequences as a conditional dismissal under § 1260.120.
Amendment History
Amended by Stats. 1978, Ch. 286.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
the Deering's California Codes Annotated / vLex. Enacted by the California Legislature.
Last verified July 29, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:challenge resolution of necessity californiawrit of mandate resolution of necessitygross abuse of discretion eminent domain california