Legal Opinion
Briggs v. City of Rolling Hills Estates
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 28, 1995No. B083200PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
VOGEL (C. S.), J
Introduction
Plaintiffs and appellants Rodney A. and Nancy Briggs own a home in the city of defendant and respondent City of Rolling Hills Estates. As a condition of permitting a substantial addition to plaintiffs’ house, the city required that an unapproved patio/deck which intruded on a neighbor’s privacy be removed. Plaintiffs did not seek judicial review of this condition by administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) but instead brought this action for injunctive relief and damages under the federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), alleging that the…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Zinermon v. BurchSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- University of Tennessee v. ElliottSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Westlake Community Hospital v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Johnson v. City of Loma LindaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- John Doe v. Regents of the UniversityCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District v. Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Castillo v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Friends of Davis v. City of DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.