Legal Opinion · Dissent

Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa

California Supreme Court

Decided December 18, 1980No. L.A. 31205Published

1DissentRichardson, J.

I respectfully dissent. In my view, the owner of real property is constitutionally entitled both to a proper notice and an effective opportunity to be heard before either the people or its government may change substantially the uses of the property. The majority holds otherwise. It concludes that while the grant of a zoning variance or use permit on real property is an “adjudicative” act, the amendment of an entire zoning ordinance is “legislative” in character even though that amendment affects only a very few parcels of land owned by only a very few persons. (Ante, pp. 518-519.) In so…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of EqualizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  2. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. CTY OF LOS ANGELESCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Associated Home Builders of Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. City of LivermoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Fasano v. Board of County Com'rs of Washington Cty.Oregon Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Randone v. Appellate DepartmentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971

14 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