Legal Opinion
Sounhein v. City of San Dimas
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 21, 1992No. B063720PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BOREN, J.
The City of San Dimas (hereinafter, the city) appeals following a judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate which ordered the city to set aside and vacate its Ordinance No. 941, which banned any second independent residential unit on any lot in the city, 1 and to process the application by Earl and Alana Sounhein (hereinafter, the Sounheins) for a conditional use permit, and reasonable modifications and amendments thereto. We find that the city failed to give the requisite public notice and to hold required public.hearings before adopting Ordinance No. 941 and failed to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Associated Home Builders of Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. City of LivermoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Taschner v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Wilson v. City of Laguna BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Rasmussen v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Hayssen v. Board of Zoning AdjustmentsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Rominger v. County of ColusaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Cohan v. City of Thousand OaksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Roberson v. City of Rialto CA4/2California Court of Appeal · 2014
- Sounhein v. City of San DimasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- People v. Optimal Global Healing, Inc.Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 2015
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.