Legal Opinion
Burk v. Municipal Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 15, 1964No. Civ. 28033PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBurke, P. J.
Petitioner Burk was charged in respondent municipal court with a violation of section 4260.75, Whittier Municipal Code, and section 1200, Whittier Municipal Code, in that he “did willfully and unlawfully erect and maintain a sign for advertising and display purposes upon real property, zoned R-3, and located at 224 North Greenleaf Ave. in the City of Whittier which sign did contain the words ‘For Sale’ and did refer to Bob Burke Reality [sic], which firm was not the owner of said real property and said sign was not a name sign or an identification sign or an open house sign nor was said real…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Zahn v. Board of Public WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Lockard v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Zahn v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Department of Public WorksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Barrick Realty, Incorporated v. City of Gary, IndianaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1974
- Sechrist v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Barrick Realty, Incorporated v. City of Gary, IndianaDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1973
- Melton v. City of San PabloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.