California Supreme Court Watch

#25-110 Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchos Water, S289391. (E078348; 108 Cal.App.5th 62, mod. 108 Cal.App.5th 666c; San Bernardino County Superior Court; CIVDS1600180.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action and remanded for further proceedings. The court limited review to the following issue: When a public entity files an eminent domain action seeking to take privately held public utility property, and the owner objects to the right to take, what is the proper standard of judicial review for the trial court to apply to determine whether the property owner has rebutted the presumptions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1245.250, subdivision (b) and 1240.650, subdivision (c)?

Petition for review granted; issues limited: 4/23/2025

Case fully briefed: 11/21/2025

Cause argued and submitted: 6/03/2026 (GMSR’s Ted Xanders appeared for the appellant)

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 8/24/2026

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Answer to Petition for Review (filed by Greines, Martin, Stein, & Richland LLP).

See the Reply in support of Petition for Review.

See the Answer Brief on the Merits (filed by Greines, Martin, Stein, & Richland LLP).

See the Town of Apple Valley’s Consolidated Answer to Amicus Briefs (filed by Greines, Martin, Stein, & Richland LLP).

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchos Water (2026) 20 Cal.5th 564.)

“The question in this case is what these special rules [for the taking of privately owned public utility property] mean for judicial review of a public entity’s decision to take property belonging to a privately owned public utility. The Town of Apple Valley, which seeks to take over a privately owned water utility, argues that its decision to take the utility is subject to the usual standard governing judicial review of a resolution of necessity — meaning, in effect, that the court can disallow the taking only if it concludes that the Town has grossly abused its discretion. The Court of Appeal accepted this argument. We do not.

The Town’s argument for gross abuse of discretion review cannot be squared with the 1992 amendments, which make the Town’s resolution rebuttable, rather than conclusive, on the critical question of whether public necessity requires the taking of the utility’s property. To evaluate a challenge to the taking of privately owned public utility property, the trial court, sitting as trier of fact, must exercise its independent judgment to determine whether the utility owner challenging the taking has rebutted the relevant presumptions and has thus established by a preponderance of the evidence that the taking is not authorized by the Eminent Domain Law.

We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings.”

Justice Kruger authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Groban, Evans, and Langhorne Wilson* concurred.

In the news: Ray De La Cruz, Water war: Court rules in favor of Town of Apple Valley versus Liberty Utilities, Victorville Daily Press (Jan. 16, 2025).

In the news: Quinn Welsch, California Supreme Court halts SoCal town’s water utility takeover, Courthouse News Service (Aug. 24, 2026).