Legal Opinion
City of Norwalk v. Auction City, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 10, 1960No. Civ. 24424PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFord, J.
The defendant appeals from a judgment by which it was 1 ‘permanently enjoined from the continuation of a race track” on certain property. The land was in a zone designated as M-2 under the zoning ordinance of the city.
Only two portions of section 501 of the ordinance are set forth in the complaint and admitted by the answer. One portion is:
“Uses Listed.
“A person shall not use any premises in Zones Q, M-2, M-3, or M-4 for any of the uses listed in this section unless a valid unrevoked special use permit for such use is required by and is in effect in accordance with the provisions of Section…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Simpson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Kirkwood v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Minney v. City of AzusaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Lambert v. Southern Counties Gas Co.California Supreme Court · 1959
- Reid & Sibell Inc. v. Gilmore & Edwards Co.California Court of Appeal · 1955
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Harrison v. California State Automobile Ass'n Inter-Insurance BureauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Thompson v. Guyer-HaysCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Becerra v. HochbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- League To Save Lake Tahoe v. Crystal EnterprisesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Crystal EnterprisesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.