Legal Opinion

Stolman v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 30, 2003No. B164169PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

VOGEL (C. S.), P. J.

INTRODUCTION

This appeal concerns the issuance of a variance to permit a nonconforming use. The variance issued by the City of Los Angeles (City) would permit Brian Clark, the owner of Canyon Service and Detail, a gasoline station located in a residential zone which has a nonconforming use, to expand the station’s existing operations to include an automobile detailing service. After the zoning administrator granted the variance and her findings were affirmed by the area planning commission and the City Council, appellant, Theodore Stolman, filed a petition for writ…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. CTY OF LOS ANGELESCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Lewin v. St. Joseph Hospital of OrangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  4. Honey Springs Homeowners Ass'n v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  5. Broadway Laguna, Vallejo Ass'n v. Board of Permit AppealsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
  2. JKH Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Industrial RelationsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. McKell v. Washington Mut., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
  4. Ferraro v. CamarlinghiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  5. Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006

20 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