Legal Opinion
Thain v. City of Palo Alto
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 29, 1962No. Civ. 20025PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
In this action involving a weed abatement ordinance of the City of Palo Alto, hereafter referred to as City, the plaintiff, a property owner, appeals from a judgment in favor of the above municipality, its assessor and its superintendent of public works. Although represented by counsel below, plaintiff and appellant appears here in propria persona.
Ordinance No. 1313, which is the center of the present controversy, was adopted by the Council of the City of Palo Alto on November 27, 1950, its introductory language reciting that " an emergency exists for the passage of this ordinance; . . . ” We…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving AssociationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Londoner v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Lorenson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- In Re PetersenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Odd Fellows' Cemetery Ass'n v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- CEEED v. California Coastal Zone Conservation CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Leppo v. City of PetalumaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Le Strange v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Cow Hollow Improvement Club v. Board of Permit AppealsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
- City of Los Angeles v. Shpegel-Dimsey, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1988
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.