Legal Opinion
Hutchinson v. City of Sacramento
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 2, 1993No. C012961PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PUGLIA, P. J.
This appeal presents the question whether changed circumstances trigger a ministerial duty requiring a city to review and reevaluate a previously established speed limit on its streets. The trial court ruled there is such a ministerial duty and issued a writ of mandate directing the defendant City of Sacramento (City) to conduct engineering and traffic surveys of a segment of H Street and to consider such surveys and exercise its discretion in reevaluating the speed limit previously established for that street.
The City appeals, contending no such ministerial duty exists.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Common Cause v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- Faulkner v. California Toll Bridge AuthorityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Parker v. BowronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Lindell Co. v. Board of Permit Appeals of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Housing Authority v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & LackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Unnamed Physician v. Board of Trustees of Saint Agnes Medical CenterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Preserve Poway v. City of PowayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Friends of H Street v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Barnes v. WongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.