Court Opinion

ID: 9568941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:08:55.480369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:16:27.229135
License: Public Domain

SPENCE, J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment. Despite the state of the pleadings and findings, a review of the record shows that the evidence was insufficient to establish the invalidity of ordinance No. 315. Said ordinance was adopted after ordinance No. 268 had been declared invalid in Wickham v. Becker, 96 Cal. App. 443 [274 Pac. 397], and it materially increased the area zoned for business purposes. The most that may be said concerning the evidence here is that it showed that reasonable minds might differ as to the propriety and necessity of restricting business development to the zones specified for that purpose in said ordinance 315. Under these circumstances the legislative determination of the propriety and necessity of such restriction is conclusive and such legislative determination may not be set aside by the courts. (Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477, at page 490 [234 Pac. 381, *15438 A. L. R 1479].) It therefore appears that the judgment declaring said ordinance valid should be affirmed. (Const., art. VI, see. 4½.)
A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on May 3, 1935.