Amerco Real Estate Co. v. City of West Sacramento
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BUTZ, J.
Business and Professions Code section 5499 (hereafter, section 5499) “grandfathers” (i.e., legalizes) on-premises business signs that do not conform to a subsequently enacted local sign law as to height or size if a conforming sign’s (1) visibility or (2) communicative effectiveness would be materially impaired by special topographic circumstances.
In this administrative mandate action (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1094.5, 1094.6), we conclude the trial court properly used the substantial evidence test, rather than the independent judgment test, to review an administrative decision…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa MesaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Flowers v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Benetatos v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Kretowicz v. Cal. Coastal Commission CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2015
- Logtale, Ltd. v. CantonDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2021
- Martis Camp Community Assn. v. County of PlacerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020