Legal Opinion
Pearl Investment Company, a California Partnership v. City and County of San Francisco, a Municipal Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 29, 1985No. 84-2345PublishedCited by 55 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CANBY, Circuit Judge:
Pearl Investment Company (Pearl) brought this civil rights action against the City and County of San Francisco (City) alleging that the City Planning Commission (Commission) violated the fifth and fourteenth amendments in acting upon a building permit application filed by Pearl. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in postponing the exercise of its jurisdiction pursuant to the Pullman abstention doctrine. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Pearl owns two buildings in an area of San Francisco zoned for community business. The property has been used…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Agins v. City of TiburonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. MidkiffSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, a California Corporation v. City of Lodi, California, Jack Sieglock, in His Capacity as Mayor of the City of Lodi Richard Prima, Jr., in His Capacity as Enforcing Officer of Lodi Ordinance No. 1650 Randall A. Hays, Individually and in His Capacity as Lodi City Attorney Michael C. Donovan, Individually and in His Capacity as Lodi Assistant City Attorney Adam L. Babich, Individually and in His Capacity as Lodi Assistant City Attorney Steven H. Doto, Individually and in His Capacity as Lodi Assistant City Attorney Bret A. Stone, Individually and in His Capacity as Lodi Assistant City Attorney John R. Till, Individually and in His Capacity as Lodi Assistant City Attorney Zevnik, Horton, Guibord and McGovern Llp, Individually and in Their Capacity as Lodi Assistant City Attorneys Fran E. Forkas, in His Capacity as Enforcing Officer of Lodi Ordinance No. 1650, Unigard Insurance Company, a Washington Corporation Unigard Security Insurance Company, a Washington Corporation v. City of LodiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4219, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5827 the San Remo Hotel Thomas Field Robert Field T & R Investment Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco, a Municipal Corporation Department of City Planning Board of Permit Appeals San Francisco Board of SupervisorsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Columbia Basin Apartment Ass'n v. City of PascoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Ellis v. City of La MesaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- United States v. Peter Morros, and State of Nevada R. Michael Turnipseed Nevada Agency for Nuclear ProjectsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.