Legal Opinion

Floresta, Inc. v. City Council

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 29, 1961No. Civ. 19297PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.

This ease apparently presents for the first time the precise question whether a city, pursuant to a zoning ordinance, may validly prohibit a cocktail lounge in a shop ping center. The uniqueness of the question does not, however, render the answer difficult. We shall point out in more detail infra that in spite of the contention that the field of liquor regulation has been exclusively pre-empted by the state, the municipal function of planning and zoning is not defeated because its incidence may result in the prohibition of a cocktail lounge at a particular locality. We shall show, likewise,…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Pipoly v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Danskin v. San Diego Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Hurst v. City of BurlingameCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Abbott v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Southern California Jockey Club, Inc. v. California Horse Racing BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Selby Realty Co. v. City of San BuenaventuraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  2. State of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Kugler v. YocumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Water Resources CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
  5. Connerly v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001

26 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