Legal Opinion
Hothem v. City and County of San Francisco
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 22, 1986No. A025359PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ELKINGTON, J.
The City and County of San Francisco and certain of its agencies (City) appeal from a judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate in proceedings taken by the City under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.
Because of an apparent shortage in San Francisco of “residential” hotel rooms, the City had enacted an ordinance requiring generally that hotel rooms occupied “residentially” as of a certain date continue in that status. Respondent on this appeal, Ronald E. Hothem (Hothem) was the owner of a building, upon some or all of whose rooms the City sought to impose a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bixby v. PiernoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Karlson v. City of CamarilloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Beamon v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Feist v. RoweCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Civil Service Commission v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Santa Clarita Organization for Planning & the Environment v. Castaic Lake Water AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- ELIZABETH D. v. ZolinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Hawthorne Savings & Loan Ass'n v. City of Signal HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Frase v. GourleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Santa Clarita Org. for Planning etc. v. Castaic Lake Water AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016