Legal Opinion
Pittsford v. City of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 17, 1942No. Civ. 13391PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDoran, J.
This action arose under circumstances similar to those in Portnoy v. Hohmann, Civil No. 13283, this day decided, ante, p. 22 [122 Pac. (2d) 533], but the ordinance sought to be enforced against plaintiffs in the instant action is section 28.01.1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. The defendant city and its chief of police here appeal from the judgment granting a permanent injunction against enforcement of the ordinance in question as to respondents, which judgment was entered after demurrer to respondents’ complaint was overruled and appellants had waived the right to answer. The complaint…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Haguer v. Committee for Industrial OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington)Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Lovell v. City of GriffinSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Williams v. Mayor of BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Stephenson v. BinfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. LyonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- In Re PorterfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Slater v. Salt Lake CityUtah Supreme Court · 1949
- In re MaresCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- San Francisco Street Artists Guild v. ScottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.