Legal Opinion
Hilton v. Board of Supervisors
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 19, 1970No. Civ. 35308PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LILLIE, J.
As owners of real property within the area involved, petitioners sought by mandamus (§ 1085, Code Civ. Proc.) to compel respondent supervisors to rescind a rezoning amendment to a county zoning ordinance. General demurrers to the petition as amended 1 having been interposed by respondents, real parties in interest and an intervener, the same were sustained without leave to amend. Petitioners appeal from the ensuing judgment dismissing the action.
The property affected by the change in zoning comprises approximately 5 acres located in Goleta; formerly it was zoned 6-R-2, Two…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Faulkner v. California Toll Bridge AuthorityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Johnston v. City of ClaremontCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Tandy v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- De Luca v. Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Stanson v. MottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa MesaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Taschner v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Sklar v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- City of Palo Alto v. Pub. Emp't Relations Bd., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2016
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.