gno.law

Williams v. City of Piedmont

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 6848 · 1929-09-24 · Published · 100 Cal. App. 802 · 281 P. 79 · 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 393

ALICE J. WILLIAMS v. CITY OF PIEDMONT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant H. S. HARRIS v. CITY OF PIEDMONT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant FRANCIS E. REYNOLDS v. CITY OF PIEDMONT, a Municipal Corporation

Area
civil
Panel
George A. Sturtevant (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Sturtevant

STURTEVANT, J.

From each of three declaratory judgments the defendant has áppealed. In each case the point is made that the trial court had no jurisdiction to determine the validity of Ordinance No. 268 of the City of Piedmont. On the authority of Andrews v. City of Piedmont (No. 6624), ante, p. 700 [281 Pac. 78], this day filed, the point may not be sustained. In the view we take of the record it is unnecessary to discuss either of the other two points made by the defendant.

Each of the judgments is affirmed.

Koford, P. J., and Nourse, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus