Attorney Search
Advocacy at a Higher Level

Horvitz & Levy is a solutions-based firm focused on appellate success. We are distinguished by our commitment to responsive service and on-going innovation in the areas of civil appellate litigation, amicus curiae support, and trial strategy consultation.

Our firm history, honors and awards, and locations speak to our collaborative approach and commitment to serving clients as well as the outstanding legal resources we bring to bear.


This eminent domain lawsuit arises from a 20-year effort by a rural irrigation district to take PG&E’s utility property for the purpose of running it as a public utility.  In that situation, the Eminent Domain Law requires a public agency to adopt a resolution finding that the proposed taking is a public necessity and the proposed use is a more necessary public use.  The statutes governing takings of utility property create only a rebuttable presumption of public necessity and more necessary public use, but the trial court ruled it would review the irrigation district’s findings on those factors only for substantial evidence and a gross abuse of discretion.

PG&E challenged the trial court’s ruling by writ petition.  Horvitz & Levy prepared an amicus curiae brief on behalf of San Diego Gas & Electric Co., which Southern California Edison joined.  With PG&E, we argued that reviewing public necessity and more necessary public use findings only for substantial evidence and a gross abuse of discretion would be fundamentally at odds with the statutory scheme: the trial court could not permit a utility to challenge such agency findings by extrinsic evidence in a “right to take” trial and, at the same time, review those agency findings only under deferential standards suited to appellate review.       

The Third District Court of Appeal agreed.  In a published opinion that closely tracks our briefing, the court issued a peremptory writ of mandate vacating the trial court’s orders.  The court held that PG&E’s challenges to the district’s resolution of necessity “are authorized by statute” and that “PG&E can succeed at trial by essentially disproving one of these findings by a preponderance of the evidence.”  The court further held that “PG&E need not demonstrate the District abused its discretion in adopting its resolution of necessity to successfully object to the District’s right to take its utility property.”