Legal Opinion

Mefford v. City of Tulare

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 19, 1951No. Civ. 4078PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMussell, J.

Plaintiff, as owner of a 38-acre tract of land in the city of Tulare, brought the instant action, under the declaratory relief provisions of section 1060 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to test the validity of a city ordinance, which, insofar as here material, provides as follows:

“Subdividers of any acreage now or hereafter subdivided shall be required to furnish Profile Map, showing proposed subdivision drainage, etc., for approval of City Engineering Department as to good engineering practice, and shall furnish and install their own sewer and water facilities within the boundaries of the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Maguire v. Hibernia Savings & Loan SocietyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Ayres v. City Council of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Columbia Pictures Corp. v. DeTothCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  4. West Coast Advertising Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Hannula v. Hacienda Homes, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1949

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Abbott v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  3. California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  4. Walker v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  5. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n v. LiemsakulCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987

24 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