Legal Opinion
Hopkins v. MacCulloch
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 13, 1939No. Civ. 2453PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GBIFFIN, J. —
Eespondents brought this action as persons directly and specifically injured by reason of their ownership of property immediately adjacent-to appellant’s property, and sought to enjoin appellant from using and permitting the use of her property for nonconforming business, in alleged violation of a zoning ordinance of the city of Newport Beach. On and prior to January 6, 1936, appellant was the owner of a parcel of land described as lot 15, block 26 of the East Side Addition of Balboa tract in the city of Newport Beach, which lot has a depth of 30 feet and a frontage of 100 feet…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Bradley v. Board of Zoning AdjustmentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Pacific Palisades Ass'n v. City of Huntington BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Town of Darien v. WebbSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- In Re KelsoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- City of Stockton v. Frisbie & LattaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Johnston v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Adler v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Tustin Heights Assn. v. BD. OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE CTY.California Court of Appeal · 1959
- Minney v. City of AzusaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.