Legal Opinion
In Re Angelus
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 8, 1944No. Crim. 2313PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STURTEVANT, J.—
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus brought for the purpose of determining the validity of sections 2-6.01 and 7-1.08 of the Municipal Code of the City of Oakland. Further facts will be stated as we proceed.
The charter under which it is now acting was adopted by the city of Oakland July 1, 1911. Zoning ordinances were authorized by the act of 1917, page 1419. On February 5, 1935 a zoning ordinance thereafter codified in the Municipal Code was adopted. Section 2-6.01 is as follows:
“Excavations other than in streets. It shall be unlawful for any person to make, or…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Hadacheck v. SebastianSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Dobbins v. Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Zahn v. Board of Public WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Davidson County v. RogersTennessee Supreme Court · 1947
- Paramount Rock Co. v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Morton v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Robinson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.