Kelber v. City of Upland
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.
These are actions to recover a refund of certain subdivision fees required of the plaintiffs by the defendant city as a condition for its approval of final subdivision maps. The defendant city is a city of the sixth class and the other defendants are the city manager and members of the city council. The actions, consolidated at the trial and on appeal, involve similar facts and identical principles of law.
These appeals involve the validity of two amendments to the city’s subdivision control ordinance. One of these, adopted in May, 1952, provides as follows:
“That at the time of the approval of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ayres v. City Council of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- McCarthy v. City of Manhattan BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Clemons v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
3Cited by29 opinions
- Merrelli v. City of St. Clair ShoresMichigan Supreme Court · 1959
- B & P DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. City of SaratogaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Friends of Lake Arrowhead v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- West Park Ave., Inc. v. Township of OceanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1966
- Pratt v. AdamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.