Legal Opinion
Skalko v. City of Sunnyvale
California Supreme Court
Decided August 18, 1939No. S. F. 16279PublishedCited by 56 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.
The appellant, as owner of real property in the city of Sunnyvale, sought a declaratory judgment that a zoning ordinance restricting the use of his property is void as to him. Ruling adversely to his contentions, the trial court decided in favor of the city.
There is little dispute concerning the facts. It appears that by the challenged enactment, property within the city of Sunnyvale has been placed in either a residential, commercial or industrial zone. The appellant’s land is in a residential district, but its north line is also the boundary between that district and an industrial district.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Nectow v. City of CambridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Washington Ex Rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. RobergeSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Zahn v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- Lockard v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Wilkins v. City of San BernardinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- HFH, LTD. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- County of San Diego v. McClurkenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- McCarthy v. City of Manhattan BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.