Legal Opinion

Ames v. City of Pasadena

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 2, 1959No. Civ. 23175PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PATROSSO, J. pro tem. *

The Board of Directors of the City of Pasadena upon appeal affirmed the action of the zoning committee in granting to the defendant Purpus a variance and exception from certain provisions of the city zoning ordinance. The variance and exception so granted permitted the defendant Purpus, in addition to a single family dwelling and garage, to construct a swimming pool 20 feet from a private roadway located at the rear of her property prior to the construction of the dwelling and garage; to erect a pool terrace building containing kitchen facilities, a pool equipment…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Steiger v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  2. Miller v. Planning CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  3. Fickeisen v. Civil Service CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  4. Jackson v. City of San MateoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. CTY OF LOS ANGELESCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Gong v. City of FremontCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  3. Kappadahl v. Alcan Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1963
  4. Running Fence Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  5. Save El Toro Assn. v. DaysCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977

5 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