Legal Opinion
Roussey v. City of Burlingame
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 8, 1950No. Civ. 14467PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WOOD (Fred B.), J.
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment denying their application for a writ of mandamus commanding the city of Burlingame and the members of its city council to grant the application of plaintiffs to subdivide certain land.
The complaint pleads an ordinance of the city of Burlingame which provides that any person desiring to change the description or boundary lines of any lot or lots of land shall apply therefor to the city council, stating the reasons for the proposed change and setting forth by map or plat the existing and the proposed changed lines or boundaries, whereupon…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- New York Ex Rel. Lieberman v. Van De CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Walker v. City of San GabrielCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Gaylord v. City of PasadenaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- In Re HolmesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- In Re PetersenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- DeAryan v. ButlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Banks v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY AND CTY. OF SFCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Singer v. DavenportWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1980
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.