§ 1250.370.Grounds Where Plaintiff Has Not Adopted Resolution

Title 7. Eminent Domain Law · Chapter 5. Commencement of Proceeding · Article 5. Objections to Right to Take · Enacted 1975 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 29, 2026

In one sentenceSection 1250.370 adds five more grounds for objecting to the right to take, available only when the plaintiff has not adopted a resolution of necessity that conclusively establishes the § 1240.030 findings, focused on whether the public entity followed the resolution process and whether the project and property choices were justified.

Full Text of § 1250.370

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

In addition to the grounds listed in Section 1250.360, grounds for objection to the right to take where the plaintiff has not adopted a resolution of necessity that conclusively establishes the matters referred to in Section 1240.030 include:

(a) The plaintiff is a public entity and has not adopted a resolution of necessity that satisfies the requirements of Article 2 (commencing with Section 1245.210) of Chapter 4.

(b) The public interest and necessity do not require the proposed project.

(c) The proposed project is not planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.

(d) The property described in the complaint is not necessary for the proposed project.

(e) The plaintiff is a quasi-public entity within the meaning of Section 1245.320 and has not satisfied the requirements of Article 3 (commencing with Section 1245.310) of Chapter 4.

Plain-English Summary

These grounds only come into play in a narrower set of cases — ones where the plaintiff has not adopted a resolution of necessity that conclusively settles the necessity questions § 1240.030 lists. When that conclusive resolution is missing, a defendant gets a wider opening to contest the underlying policy decisions behind the taking, not just its bare legal authority.

Two grounds target the process itself: that a public-entity plaintiff has not adopted a resolution meeting § 1245.210's requirements, or that a quasi-public entity has not satisfied § 1245.320's parallel requirements. The other three go to the substance of the necessity decision — that the public interest and necessity do not require the project, that the project is not planned or located to be as compatible as possible with the public good while minimizing private injury, or that the specific property described in the complaint is not necessary for the project.

Compare this to § 1250.360's grounds, which stay available no matter what. Once a plaintiff has adopted a valid, conclusive resolution of necessity, these particular arguments about the underlying necessity decision fall away — the resolution itself settles them.

Frequently Asked Questions

When do these additional grounds for objection become available?

Only when the plaintiff has not adopted a resolution of necessity that conclusively establishes the matters referred to in § 1240.030.

What kind of arguments does § 1250.370 let a defendant raise?

That the public interest and necessity do not require the project, that the project is not planned to minimize private injury, or that the specific property is not necessary for the project, among others.

Does this section apply to quasi-public entities as well as public entities?

Yes. Subdivision (e) covers a quasi-public entity that has not satisfied § 1245.320's requirements.

Amendment History

Added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 1275.

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: challenging resolution of necessity eminent domainpublic interest and necessity objection