SFPP, L.P. v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 452, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 96
Railroad prevailed because easement desired by pipeline company was not located in the manner most compatible with the greatest public good.
A railroad and a pipeline company had a dispute over whether a pipeline existing in the railroad's right-of-way should be moved before the railroad built a second track in the right-of-way. The pipeline company refused to move the pipeline and filed a lawsuit to condemn a five-foot easement around the existing location of the pipeline. The parties agreed to employ a retired judge to decide the case as a referee. The referee filed a written statement of decision holding that the proposed easement was not located in the manner most compatible with the greatest public good as required by section 1240.030, subdivision (b) and, accordingly, ruled in favor of the railroad.
Wackeen v. Malis 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 502
Appellant prevailed because the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider the merits.
Defendants in a civil action brought motions under Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6 (entry of judgment pursuant to terms of stipulation for settlement), to enforce indemnification and attorney fees provisions contained in the parties' written settlement agreement. The trial court found that defendants were entitled to recover specified attorney fees. However, the Court of Appeal found that the Trial Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter.