Legal Opinion
Prentiss v. City of South Pasadena
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 23, 1993No. B061388PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
VOGEL (C. S.), J.
Respondents Lee and Shirley Prentiss sought a building permit for construction of an addition to their single family home, from appellants the City of South Pasadena, its building and planning division, and its building and planning director. Respondents’ application for the building permit became embroiled in controversy after appellants asserted that respondents’ home was a “qualified historic structure” within the meaning of the State Historical Building Code. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 18950-18961.) Contending that the State Historical Building Code gave appellants…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Ass'n for Protection of Environmental Values v. City of UkiahCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- People v. Department of Housing & Community DevelopmentCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- SUTCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. Modesto High School Dist.California Court of Appeal · 1989
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- League for Protection of Oakland's Architectural & Historic Resources v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Qwest Communications Corp. v. City of BerkeleyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2001
- Evans v. BurrussCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
- Friends of the Juana Briones House v. City of Palo AltoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Health First v. March Joint Powers AuthorityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.