Legal Opinion
Hurst v. City of Burlingame
California Supreme Court
Decided April 29, 1929No. Docket No. S.F. 12777PublishedCited by 115 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action to enjoin the enforcement of a zoning ordinance of the City of Burlingame.
The plaintiff is the owner of lots 21 and 22 in block 20 of the Lyon and Hoag Subdivision of the City of Burlingame. The defendants are the City of Burlingame, its board of trustees and the executive officers thereof. At a special election held for that purpose on September 17, 1923, the electors of said city, acting under the initiative provisions of the constitution and laws of the state, approved an ordinance, number 162, and entitled “An…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Washington Ex Rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. RobergeSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Zottman v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Hopping v. Council of City of RichmondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by115 opinions
- Associated Home Builders of Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. City of LivermoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Lockard v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Wilkins v. City of San BernardinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut CreekCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Legislature v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
110 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.