Legal Opinion

Hartman v. Rizzuto

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 16, 1954No. Civ. 15621PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

WOOD (Fred B.), J.

The principal question upon this appeal is whether or not a rear yard requirement of a municipal zoning ordinance continues operative and makes the land affected not “marketable” or not “free and clear of all incumbrances,” under the circumstances of this case.

Plaintiff and cross-defendant R. H. Hartman owned an L-shaped parcel of realty near the intersection of George and First Streets in the city of San Jose. It consisted of two lots, numbered 15 and 17, each 137.50 feet in depth. Lot 15, approximately 47 feet wide, fronted on George Street. Lot 17, 68.75 feet wide,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Curran v. HeslopCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  2. Whelan v. RossiterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
  3. Tandy v. WaeschCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  4. George v. ColvinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Wilcox v. Pioneer Homes, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API