County of Orange v. Heim

30 Cal. App. 3d 694 (1973)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

County of Orange v. Heim

California Court of Appeal
30 Cal. App. 3d 694 (1973)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

In California’s Upper Newport Bay (UNB), the Irvine Company (Irvine) (plaintiff) owned (1) 243 acres of tidelands, subject to a public-trust easement; and (2) approximately 170 acres of upland, owned in fee-simple. The County of Orange (Orange County) (plaintiff), in which UNB was located, owned 306 acres of tidelands in UNB. Through a combination of county ownership and public-trust easements, the public had access to the entire UNB shoreline. As part of a plan to develop a harbor in UNB, Irvine and Orange County entered into a land-exchange agreement under which (a) Irvine would convey to Orange County 170 acres of upland plus 184 acres of Irvine-owned tidelands; and, in exchange, (b) Orange County would convey to Irvine 98 acres of county-owned tidelands and, in addition, Orange County would remove the public-trust easement on the 60 acres of tidelines Irvine retained from its original plot. After the land-exchange, there would be 636 acres of publicly accessible tidelands, down from the original 646 acres. However, because of the geography and the proposed harbor development, the land-exchange would result in the public losing access to 77 percent of the UNB shoreline. V.A. Heim (defendant), the Orange County Auditor, along with several local citizens’ groups, sued to invalidate the land-exchange agreement between Irvine and Orange County, arguing (i) the approximately 160 acres of tidelands Orange County proposed to alienate, either by direct conveyance or by removal of easements, did not constitute a relatively small parcel conveyed as part of a beneficial land exchange; and (ii) Orange County therefore did not have authority to grant Irvine fee-simple ownership over those tidelands. Irvine and Orange County challenged, arguing that the 160 acres of conveyed tidelands represented a small portion of the overall acreage involved in the agreement. The trial court upheld the land-exchange agreement, holding that it involved a relatively small conveyance because the net loss of publicly accessible tidelands would only be about 10 acres. Heim appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kaufman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership