Legal Opinion
Reynolds v. Barrett
California Supreme Court
Decided October 6, 1938No. S. F. 15581PublishedCited by 56 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
Respondents, as owners of property in a residential zone, instituted this proceeding in mandamus to compel the Building Inspector of the city of Piedmont to issue them a building permit to erect a business structure thereon. Prom a judgment ordering the Building Inspector to issue the permit, this appeal is taken.
The city of Piedmont embraces within its corporate limits about 1100 acres and has a population of approximately 10,000. It is entirely surrounded by the city of Oakland. It is operated under a freeholders’ charter approved by the legislature (Stats. 1923, p. 1564), which,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Zahn v. Board of Public WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Hurst v. City of BurlingameCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Ex Parte HadacheckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Brown v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- Lockard v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Wilkins v. City of San BernardinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- City of Los Angeles v. GageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- In Re HerreraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- McCarthy v. City of Manhattan BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.