Legal Opinion
Biscay v. City of Burlingame
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 28, 1932No. Docket No. 8534PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LAMBEBSON, J., pro tem.
This is an action to enjoin the City of Burlingame, which is a municipal corporation of the sixth class, and its officers, from enforcing as against the plaintiff and appellant, the provisions of a zoning ordinance of that city designated “Ordinance No. 227”. By their answer the respondents seek to justify their threatened acts under authority of Ordinances No. 92 and No. 227 of the respondent municipal corporation.
On October 16, 1928, appellant made application to the City of Burlingame for a building permit covering the intended erection of a frame garage 32 by 35'…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Zahn v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Jones v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Hurst v. City of BurlingameCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- In Re WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Wilkins v. City of San BernardinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Trans-Oceanic Oil Corp. v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Acker v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Kubby v. HammondArizona Supreme Court · 1948
- Marshall v. City of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1948
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.