Legal Opinion

Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 31, 1996No. B091312PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

This case raises the issue whether the Mello act (Gov. Code, §§ 65590 & 65590.1) imposes a mandatory duty on local governments to require developers to replace residential units, or pay an in-lieu fee, whenever they demolish or convert dwelling units occupied by low- or moderate-income persons in the coastal zone. Appellants, the Venice Town Council, Inc., the Barton-Hill Neighborhood Association and Carol Berman, a low-income tenant who resides in Venice, contend the Mello act imposes such a duty. Respondent, the City of Los Angeles (City), argues the Mello act imposes no…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Common Cause v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Taylor v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Glendale City Employees' Ass'n v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  5. People Ex Rel. Younger v. County of El DoradoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971

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

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Coalition of Concerned Communities, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998
  3. Zhang v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005

32 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