Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Zoning ordinances (4)
- Municipal Corporations (3)
- Eminent domain (2)
- Adverse Possession (1)
- Annexation Act of 1913 (1)
-
- Bond assessment (1)
- Bond premiums (1)
- Building permits (1)
- Clean hands doctrine (1)
- Condemnation practices (1)
- Conflict of interest (1)
- Construction of City Charter (1)
- County Water Agencies (1)
- County charter (1)
- Delegation of Taxing Power (1)
- Easements (1)
- Franchises, flood control districts, eminent domain (1)
- Games of chance (1)
- Highway maintenance (1)
- Liquor license (1)
- Malicious prosecution (1)
- Municipal corporations (1)
- Municipal corporations, annexation of uninhabited territory (1)
- Nonconforming use (1)
- Obiter dictum (1)
- Private schools (1)
- Property and Water Rights (1)
- Public securities (1)
- Public utilities (1)
- Redistricting (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 38
Full-Text Articles in Law
People V. Chambers, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Chambers, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Property that belonged to state should not have been sold for taxes, and thus county was responsible for reimbursing former owners for tax deed; statute of limitations did not apply to property owned by the state and devoted to a public use.
Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. V. Southern California Edison Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. V. Southern California Edison Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
By accepting a franchise right in public streets, a utility was subject to an implied obligation to relocate its facilities at its own expense when necessary to make way for the laying of storm drains by a flood control district.
People Ex Rel. Averna V. Palm Springs [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People Ex Rel. Averna V. Palm Springs [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Judgment was entered in favor of a city in a quo warranto action challenging the annexation of uninhabited land because annexation was not unreasonable, and the permissible shape, character, and extent of the annexed land was a political question.
Johnston V. Claremont [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Johnston V. Claremont [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Amendment to zoning ordinance was invalid, as the act of amending a general zoning ordinance to change certain property from one zone to another was an act pursuant to the city's legislative capacity, which was subject to referendum.
People Ex Rel. Department Of Public Works V. Russell [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People Ex Rel. Department Of Public Works V. Russell [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Award of severance damages for landowner's non-abutting parcel in condemnation case was vacated because county road relocation did not impair landowner's easement on parcel but was an inconvenience suffered as member of public and was noncompensable.
Glendale V. Trondsen, Jesse W. Carter
Glendale V. Trondsen, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A charge for rubbish collection that was imposed by a city ordinance was a reasonable exercise of the police power. Residents received the benefit of rubbish collection availability notwithstanding fact that they chose not to use the services.
Wilson V. Beville, Jesse W. Carter
Wilson V. Beville, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Landowner was not required to file a claim with the city before obtaining compensation for taking a part of his property for a public street easement under the doctrine of inverse condemnation.
Walnut Creek V. Silveira, Jesse W. Carter
Walnut Creek V. Silveira, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Limited Obligation Bond Law was a valid general law because it related to a municipal affair by providing new streets to provide for the greatly increased traffic circulation in commercial area and general fund was not liable for payment of bonds.
Santa Barbara County Water Agency V. All Persons & Parties [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Santa Barbara County Water Agency V. All Persons & Parties [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Trial court properly declared validity of existence of county water agency and member units, but improperly declared contracts valid because excess land provisions in contracts would have constituted denials of due process and equal protection.
Stockton Theatres, Inc. V. Palermo, Jesse W. Carter
Stockton Theatres, Inc. V. Palermo, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Grant of the lessor's motions to re-tax costs, to enter satisfaction of judgment, and release attachments was improper where the costs of a mandatory bond were recoverable by the lessee, and the cost required consideration prior to release.
Hall V. Taft, Jesse W. Carter
Hall V. Taft, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A city was not permitted to require that a contractor obtain a city building permit when the contractor had been employed by the state to build a school. So doing restricted the state's rights of sovereignty.
Nathan H. Schur, Inc. V. Santa Monica, Jesse W. Carter
Nathan H. Schur, Inc. V. Santa Monica, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A prospective licensee was entitled to receive a license to operate games of skill where the city council found the games did not violate the law against games of chance, but the police chief refused to issue them.
Lynn V. Duckel [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Lynn V. Duckel [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Homeowner's action was barred because he did not exhaust his administrative remedy prior to instituting suit, and he was properly denied relief because he did not have "clean hands," as he ran trucks in alley without a written permit.
Fischer V. County Of Shasta [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Fischer V. County Of Shasta [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A statute authorizing the creation of a tax maintenance district which could construct street lighting on roads within the county authorized the maintenance district to construct street lighting on a state highway within the district.
Oakland V. Burns [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Oakland V. Burns [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Judgment for the transportation service provider was reversed where the city substantially followed its charter in granting an exclusive license over an airport road to another service provider, given that an airport constituted a public use.
Bailey V. County Of L.A., Jesse W. Carter
Bailey V. County Of L.A., Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
An ordinance that permitted county officials to build a juvenile hall near the property owner's property was duly adopted without public hearing where the zoning changes required amendments to existing ordinances, not new ordinances.
Vernon V. Los Angeles [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Vernon V. Los Angeles [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
In a declaratory judgment proceeding, the court determined that the City of Vernon should have been charged with all payments accrued under the composite agreement up to the entry of judgment in the state abatement action.
Roman Catholic Welfare Corp. V. Piedmont, Jesse W. Carter
Roman Catholic Welfare Corp. V. Piedmont, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
City ordinance, which prevented the construction of a building to be used for private school purposes in an area where public schools were located, was unconstitutional and void.
Harden V. Superior Court Of Alameda County, Jesse W. Carter
Harden V. Superior Court Of Alameda County, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A writ of prohibition restraining eminent domain proceedings was proper where the landowners had no remedy by appeal, the city had no authority to proceed against property outside its limits, and the superior court lacked jurisdiction in the action.
Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. V. County Of Los Angeles [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. V. County Of Los Angeles [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where cement company and lessor had adequate remedy at law to review planning commission proceedings they were not entitled to injunctive or declaratory relief to prohibit the county from enforcing zoning ordinances to remove existing businesses.
Blotter V. Farrell, Jesse W. Carter
Blotter V. Farrell, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The city's power to legislate included, by necessary implication, the power to amend existing legislation, including the power to redistrict. Further, an initiative petition was a proper method of proposing such legislation.
Taenaka V. State Board Of Equalization, Jesse W. Carter
Taenaka V. State Board Of Equalization, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A man of Japanese ancestry was entitled to the return of his liquor license to rectify what the legislature felt was an injustice of the deprivation of persons of Japanese ancestry of liquor licenses held by them upon the ground of their ancestry.
San Diego V. Southern California Tel. Corp. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
San Diego V. Southern California Tel. Corp. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
In computing gross receipts to determine the amount to be paid by a telephone company for using public streets, a ratio based on relative investment was necessary and only the allocation of receipts for the actual franchise area was allowed.
County Of Los Angeles V. Southern Counties Gas Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
County Of Los Angeles V. Southern Counties Gas Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The governing statute allowed the public utility to retain 100 percent of its gross receipts from its private property not subject to franchise charges, as well as 98 percent of its gross receipts arising from the use of the franchises in a county.
People Ex Rel. Skelly V. Glendale [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People Ex Rel. Skelly V. Glendale [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The Annexation Act of 1913 required the city to publish notice of desired annexation at least once a week for four weeks. It did not require a minimum period of four weeks; thus, 26 days between first publication and the election was compliant.
Simpson V. Los Angeles [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Simpson V. Los Angeles [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A city, under its police power, could enact local measures that did not conflict with general statutes. An ordinance providing for the surrender of unclaimed animals to humane research facilities did not conflict with state laws.
Sutter Basin Corp. V. Brown [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Sutter Basin Corp. V. Brown [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
County treasurer could not call bond assessment over and above amount needed to meet unpaid principal and interest. After bonds were issued there was no right to call the assessment except to meet unpaid installments of principal and interest.
May V. Board Of Directors, Jesse W. Carter
May V. Board Of Directors, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The owner of bonds issued by an irrigation district was not entitled to relief in aid of writ of mandamus, compelling the district board of directors to comply with a previous writ ordering the board to levy an assessment on lands to pay her bonds.
Handler V. Board Of Supervisors, Jesse W. Carter
Handler V. Board Of Supervisors, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A county was authorized by statute to oppose a commuter railroad's application for a passenger-fare rate increase and to hire an attorney to represent the county in opposing the rate increase.
Fascination, Inc. V. Hoover, Jesse W. Carter
Fascination, Inc. V. Hoover, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The right to engage in business in the city for whom the officials worked could not be arbitrarily denied by the city's officials without a hearing or an opportunity to present the merits of the application.