Legal Opinion · Dissent

Consaul v. City of San Diego

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 1, 1992No. D012162Published

1DissentNares, J.

I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority as to the

facts of this matter, the applicable standard of review, and the controlling precedent as set forth by our Supreme Court in various cases. I would, for the reasons set forth below, reverse.

Appellants Robert and Eva Consaul and Thomas Ahrens (collectively, Ahrens) own a 1.06-acre of undeveloped land in a highly urbanized area of *1803San Diego (City). Ahrens petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate after their land was downzoned from multifamily residential (R-1000) to single-family dwelling (R1-5000). The superior court…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Bixby v. PiernoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Horn v. County of VenturaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Wulzen v. Bd. of Supervisors of City & Cty of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. McHugh v. Santa Monica Rent Control BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989

9 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