Legal Opinion

Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino

California Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1946No. L. A. 19148PublishedCited by 129 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.

Plaintiff sought declaratory relief, claiming that, the zoning ordinance of the city of San Bernardino was unreasonable and invalid as applied to the west 112 feet of his property because that portion was placed in a single family dwelling zone. The remainder of this property is located in a small or “spot” business zone which is'in the center of a large residential district, zoned for single family dwellings. Plaintiff, in substance, is attempting to obtain an extension of one arm of this small business zone by judicial, decree, contrary to the legislative determination by which the…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Zahn v. Board of Public WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  3. Zahn v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Jones v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Hurst v. City of BurlingameCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by129 opinions

  1. Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Lockard v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  3. City of Los Angeles v. GageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  4. Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  5. County of San Diego v. McClurkenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951

124 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