5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1976–1985 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Russian Hill Improvement Ass'n v. Board of Permit Appealsgreen2 sentences1985(Brougher v. Board of Public Works (1928) 205 Cal. 426, 435 [ 271 P. 487 ]; see Russian Hill Improvement Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1967) 66 Cal.2d 34, 39 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 672 , 423 P.2d 824 ]; cf. Miller v. Board of Public Works (1925) 195 Cal. 477 [ 234 P. 381 , 38 A.L.R. 1479 ]; and see cases collected in 50 A.L.R.3d 596 , 602.) A landowner which has not even applied for a permit cannot be in a better position merely because it had previously received permission to subdivide its property and made certain improvements on the land.” (Id., at p. 795, italics added.) Moreover, both the act 1985(Brougher v. Board of Public Works (1928) 205 Cal. 426, 435 [ 271 P. 487 ]; see Russian Hill Improvement Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1967) 66 Cal.2d 34, 39 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 672 , 423 P.2d 824 ]; cf. Miller v. Board of Public Works (1925) 195 Cal. 477 [ 234 P. 381 , 38 A.L.R. 1479 ]; and see cases collected in 50 A.L.R.3d 596 , 602.) A landowner which has not even applied for a permit cannot be in a better position merely because it had previously received permission to subdivide its property and made certain improvements on the land.” (Id., at p. 795, italics added.) Moreover, both the act | 4 | 4 |
Brougher v. Board of Public Works of San Franciscogreen2 sentences1985(Brougher v. Board of Public Works (1928) 205 Cal. 426, 435 [ 271 P. 487 ]; see Russian Hill Improvement Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1967) 66 Cal.2d 34, 39 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 672 , 423 P.2d 824 ]; cf. Miller v. Board of Public Works (1925) 195 Cal. 477 [ 234 P. 381 , 38 A.L.R. 1479 ]; and see cases collected in 50 A.L.R.3d 596 , 602.) A landowner which has not even applied for a permit cannot be in a better position merely because it had previously received permission to subdivide its property and made certain improvements on the land.” (Id., at p. 795, italics added.) Moreover, both the act 1985(Brougher v. Board of Public Works (1928) 205 Cal. 426, 435 [ 271 P. 487 ]; see Russian Hill Improvement Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1967) 66 Cal.2d 34, 39 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 672 , 423 P.2d 824 ]; cf. Miller v. Board of Public Works (1925) 195 Cal. 477 [ 234 P. 381 , 38 A.L.R. 1479 ]; and see cases collected in 50 A.L.R.3d 596 , 602.) A landowner which has not even applied for a permit cannot be in a better position merely because it had previously received permission to subdivide its property and made certain improvements on the land.” (Id., at p. 795, italics added.) Moreover, both the act | 4 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences1985(Brougher v. Board of Public Works (1928) 205 Cal. 426, 435 [ 271 P. 487 ]; see Russian Hill Improvement Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1967) 66 Cal.2d 34, 39 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 672 , 423 P.2d 824 ]; cf. Miller v. Board of Public Works (1925) 195 Cal. 477 [ 234 P. 381 , 38 A.L.R. 1479 ]; and see cases collected in 50 A.L.R.3d 596 , 602.) A landowner which has not even applied for a permit cannot be in a better position merely because it had previously received permission to subdivide its property and made certain improvements on the land.” (Id., at p. 795, italics added.) Moreover, both the act 1985(Brougher v. Board of Public Works (1928) 205 Cal. 426, 435 [ 271 P. 487 ]; see Russian Hill Improvement Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1967) 66 Cal.2d 34, 39 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 672 , 423 P.2d 824 ]; cf. Miller v. Board of Public Works (1925) 195 Cal. 477 [ 234 P. 381 , 38 A.L.R. 1479 ]; and see cases collected in 50 A.L.R.3d 596 , 602.) A landowner which has not even applied for a permit cannot be in a better position merely because it had previously received permission to subdivide its property and made certain improvements on the land.” (Id., at p. 795, italics added.) Moreover, both the act | 4 | 1976–1985 |
El Patio v. Permanent Rent Control Board
green
2 sentences1985The Orange County Building Code (§ 302(a)) provides that a building permit may not issue unless the plans conform not only to the structural requirements of the code but to ‘other pertinent laws and ordinances. ’ This provision codifies the general rule that a builder must comply with the laws which are in effect at the time a building permit is issued, including the laws which were enacted after application for the permit. [Citations.] A landowner which has not even applied for a permit cannot be in a better position merely because it had previously received permission to subdivide its proper 1985The Orange County Building Code (§ 302(a)) provides that a building permit may not issue unless the plans conform not only to the structural requirements of the code but to ‘other pertinent laws and ordinances. ’ This provision codifies the general rule that a builder must comply with the laws which are in effect at the time a building permit is issued, including the laws which were enacted after application for the permit. [Citations.] A landowner which has not even applied for a permit cannot be in a better position merely because it had previously received permission to subdivide its proper | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.