Legal Opinion

Friedman v. City of Beverly Hills

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 16, 1996No. B090063PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GILBERT, J.

Vehicle Code section 22507 1 allows local agencies to create preferential parking on designated streets “. . .to residents and merchants . . . .” May a city provide preferred parking to its residents, but not to its merchants? Yes, it may.

Jeffrey Friedman, a merchant, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of respondent, the City of Beverly Hills (City). The judgment denied Friedman a writ of mandate to compel the City to vacate its adoption of the resolution granting preferential parking to residents. Because section 22507 grants local entities broad power to…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Gay Law Students Ass'n v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
  2. California Manufacturers Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Ex Parte DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  4. People v. SkinnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. United States v. Eric Colin, United States of America v. Efrain Estrada-NavaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
  2. Utility Cost Management v. East Bay Municipal Utility DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  3. In Re ThomasDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2006
  4. T.O. IX, LLC v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  5. Backlund v. StoneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025

1 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