Introducing Exa PlacesLearn more
Legal Opinion

Hart v. City of Beverly Hills

California Supreme Court

Decided May 31, 1938No. L. A. 16443PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHouser, J.

From the record herein, it appears that by the terms of a zoning ordinance, a specified portion of the City of Beverly Hills is set apart as a residential district. In substance, by the terms of a separate ordinance of said city it is provided that no auction sale of personal property shall be held in such an area, but that “all auction sales except for the sale of real property are required to be held in the retail business district, ...” It further appears that Andrew Rice maintains his home in a residential district of said city; that at a time after said last-mentioned ordinance became…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Riley v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  2. The Title & Document Restoration Co. v. KerriganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  4. E. Clemens Horst Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  5. People v. PaceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925

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

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Birkenfeld v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. City of Los Angeles v. GageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  3. State Board of Dry Cleaners v. Thrift-D-Lux Cleaners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1953
  4. In Re PetersenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Clemons v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API