Legal Opinion

Fletcher v. Porter

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 8, 1962No. Civ. 20194PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.

This attempt of the City Council of Palo Alto to retain powers allegedly vested in it by the city charter, by preventing the electorate from voting on an ordinance proposed through the initiative procedure, must fail. The ordinance would clarify the duties of the planning commission with respect to the adoption of a master plan. We find no merit in the council’s multiple objections to the ordinance: (1) that the ordinance, if valid, cannot be initiated by the electorate; (2) that the ordinance violates legislative requirements and due process of law; and (3) that the ordinance is void for…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Hurst v. City of BurlingameCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  3. McFadden v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Lindell Co. v. Board of Permit Appeals of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Collins v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. DeVita v. County of NapaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  2. San Diego Building Contractors Ass'n v. City CouncilCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. CEEED v. California Coastal Zone Conservation CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  4. Smith v. Township of LivingstonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1969
  5. O'Loane v. O'RourkeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965

27 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