1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Cal.App.4th
  4. 11 Cal.App.4th
  5. 11 Cal.App.4th 906 (1992)
 

MURPHY v. CITY OF ALAMEDA

Docket No. A056245.

11 Cal.App.4th 906 (1992)

14 Cal. Rptr.2d 329

EDWARD J. MURPHY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF ALAMEDA et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One.

December 14, 1992.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

COUNSEL

David A. Self and Stuart A. McIntosh for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Carol Korade, City Attorney, Dang & Trachuk and Douglas Y. Dang for Defendants and Respondents.

OPINION

STRANKMAN, P.J.

Evidence Code section 669.5 requires that in any action challenging the validity of certain growth control ordinances, the city or county enacting the ordinance must bear the burden of proof that the ordinance is "necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare" of its population.1 The question in this appeal is whether section 669.5 is applicable in an action...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases