Petitioner James Constant, in propria persona, respectfully petitions this honorable court for review of the appeal court's decision. On 5/13/09, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two Opinion ("O") reversed the judgment in Case E046012 (costs) and affirmed the judgments in Cases E044802 (Non constitutional and constitutional claims) and E045320 (Motion to Dismiss under Section 1268.020)1. A Petition for Rehearing filed on 5/22/09 was denied.


This case presents serious and urgent questions as to the constitutional application of California's eminent domain laws which could affect many cases throughout California. The issues presented are:

1. After one of two co-owners settles before trial, does just compensation require that the non-settling owner receive the total jury award?

2. Does just compensation require

A. a determination of the constitutional claim instead of making just compensation depend on State statutory provisions 1268.010 et. seq., Instruction CACI 3515, judicial discretion, and Codes 663, 1005 and 1008?

B. An objective comparison between authorities and State statutory provisions and State and Federal constitutional mandates to insure the neutrality of authorities and codes?

C. dismissing the case (1) if valuation and payment are after taking? (2) when the State's Summary of Appraisal falls short of the statutory requirements? (3) if the deposit is inadequate?

D. setting the date of value at the time of trial when the delay in bringing the case to trial within the 1 year statutory period was not the fault of defendants?

E. setting the JNOV aside when (1) the State's Summary of Appraisal and the Resolution of Necessity determined 100% damage to the remainder? (2) petitioner was ruled not qualified to testify as an expert? (3) in entertaining a JNOV the court makes credibility determinations, weighs the evidence, adopts all evidence favorable to the moving party (State) that the jury is not required to believe, and disregards evidence admitted at trial favoring the non-movant (petitioner)?

3. Did the trial court's rulings on right to take issues, on compensation issues, on trial issues, and its post trial denial of petitioner's motion for a new trial, granting of the State's Motion For Judgment Not withstanding Verdict ("JNOV"), denial of Motion to Set Aside Judgment, judgment awarding petitioner half the trial court's JNOV award, and the denial of Motion to Dismiss The Eminent Domain Proceeding deprive petitioner of the just compensation provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions and of the equal treatment provision of the Constitution?

4. Did the refusal to examine the entire case including the evidence, required by Calif. Const. Art. 6, § 13, cause a miscarriage of justice?

5. Did the refusal to consider Federal constitutional claims violate the Supremacy clause?

6. Did the trial court lack power under California's Constitution to decide all issues of compensation?

Book available at