“AGENCY shall make a deposit of probable compensation with the County Treasury in the amount of $3,091,000,” at which time, pursuant to section 1255.410, it would be empowered to take exclusive possession of the property. Mesdaq did not file a motion seeking determination or redetermination of the deposit amount under section 1255.030, subdivision (a). Immediately prior to trial, the court determined that the date of trial, not the statutorily determined date of deposit, would be the date of valuation. The court reasoned rising property values and delays in concluding the proceedings necessitated a later valuation date to enforce the constitutional mandate of just compensation, citing Saratoga Fire Protection Dist. v. Hackett (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 895, 905-906 [118 Cal.Rptr.2d 696] (<HOLDING>). The parties and the trial court recognized
holding that the construction of a median in a roadway that causes traffic traveling to and from an abutting property to travel a cireuitous route does not constitute a compensable taking under indiana eminent domain law holding that where necessary to enforce the california constitutions requirement of just compensation for a taking courts can disregard statutory eminent domain requirements holding that a termination of a government contract does not constitute a taking of the plaintiffs property without just compensation or without due process of law holding ripe a claim for a pre1987 taking because prior to first english california law did not permit landowners to seek compensation for a regulatory taking through an action in inverse condemnation holding that the termination of a billboard lease according to its terms was not a taking of property by eminent domain