Legal Opinion
Ching v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 9, 1998No. A074816PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PHELAN, P. J.
Harsch Investment Corporation (Harsch) appeals from a judgment granting the petition of Alice Ching, Bai Sung Ho, Kam O. Lau and Ke Qin Shen (collectively referred to as Ching) for a peremptory writ of mandate vacating a decision of the San Francisco Board of Permit Appeals (the Board). Harsch contends the judgment must be reversed because Ching’s petition was untimely filed under the 90-day limitation period set by Government Code former section 65907. We agree with appellant, and therefore reverse the judgment.
Factual and Procedural Background
Harsch is an owner and…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Fisher v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- In Re WilliamsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Fisher v. City of BerkeleySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of HanfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- In Re BittakerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Travis v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Wagner v. City of South PasadenaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Inc. v. City & County of San FranciscoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2016
- Travis v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- AIDS HealthCare Foundation v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.