Legal Opinion

Hamer v. Town of Ross

California Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 1963No. S. F. No. 20667PublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.

While zoning ordinances which impose a one-acre lot restriction cannot properly apply to property which is virtually surrounded by parcels of lesser size, they may, conversely, restrict the use of the property to a single-family dwelling because that usage is the predominant characteristic of the property in the general area. Applying the accepted test that we will uphold such a regulation if its reasonableness is fairly debatable, we sustain the single-family restriction. We further hold that the ordinances may severably be enforced as to the single-family restriction although not as to the…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Dowsey v. Village of KensingtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  3. Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Village of Richton ParkIllinois Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Lockard v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Zahn v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. Associated Home Builders of Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. City of LivermoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Calfarm Insurance v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Birkenfeld v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  5. HFH, LTD. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975

43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API