Legal Opinion
County of San Mateo v. Consolidated Farms, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 21, 1959No. Civ. 18209PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBray, P. J.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants.
Question Presented
Were defendants operating a commercial hog ranch within the meaning of an ordinance defining such ranch?
Facts
San Mateo County Ordinance Number 568 (codified in San Mateo County Ordinance Code, § 5560.1, div. V, pt. Two, ch. 7) provides: 1 ‘ Commercial hog ranch shall mean any premises where more than forty (40) head of swine are maintained, raised, fed or fattened, or where two or more head of swine are maintained, raised, fed or fattened upon commercial garbage. ’ ’
Consolidated Farms, a California corporation, owns a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Gibbons v. BrandtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1948
- Wallace v. PayneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- McIntyre v. Doe & RoeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Ballsun v. Star Petroleum Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
- Dickey v. PattisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- People v. AtwoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- In Re the Marriage of UmphreyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- City of Norwalk v. Auction City, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1960
- England v. ChristensenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
- Cape Concord Homeowners Assn. v. City of EscondidoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017