## Facts

- The Oakland Raiders played home games at the Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum under a 1966 licensing agreement with renewal options.
- After exercising several renewal options, the Raiders declined to renew for the 1980 season following unsuccessful negotiations for a new agreement.
- The Raiders announced an intention to relocate the franchise from Oakland to Los Angeles.
- The City of Oakland filed an eminent domain action seeking to condemn the “property rights” associated with the Raiders’ NFL franchise membership and related contractual rights.
- The trial court initially issued injunctive relief preventing transfer of the franchise.
- The trial court later granted summary judgment to the Raiders, ruling the franchise was not “property” under California’s Eminent Domain Law, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
- The City appealed to the California Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a professional football franchise and associated intangible contractual rights constitute “property” subject to condemnation under California’s Eminent Domain Law.
2. Whether the City’s proposed taking could be rejected as not for a “public use” as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage, or instead required an evidentiary trial.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for a full evidentiary trial on the merits.
- The court held that intangible interests such as an NFL franchise may constitute condemnable “property” under California’s Eminent Domain Law.
- The court held that the “public use” question could not be resolved against the City on the existing summary judgment record.
- The court did not finally determine that the proposed condemnation satisfied public use or other constitutional requirements.

## Legal Principles

- California eminent domain law is not categorically limited to tangible property or intangible interests connected to realty; intangible property interests may be subject to condemnation unless excluded by law.
- A sports franchise may be treated as a recognizable property interest for eminent domain purposes, even if characterized as a network of contractual rights.
- Public use under California law is broadly construed; whether a particular taking serves a public use may require factual development rather than resolution on summary judgment when the record is undeveloped.
- A ruling that a taking is not barred as a matter of law does not establish that the taking is constitutional; the condemning authority must still prove public use and satisfy just compensation requirements at trial.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Raiders’ franchise rights could qualify as condemnable property and that the City was entitled to attempt to prove public use at an evidentiary trial, making dismissal on summary judgment improper.


City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 32 Cal. 3d 60, 646 P.2d 835 (Cal. 1982)