City of Cupertino v. City of San Jose

Good Law
186 Cal. App. 2d 29·1960 Cal. App. LEXIS 1597·8 Cal. Rptr. 525
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 2, 1960Civ. 19123California1,106 words

Opinion

Opinion

Draper, J.

This action arises from intercity competition for the right to annex uninhabited territory.

Cupertino’s city council, by resolution of May 12, 1958, proposed to annex territory designated as Bubb Number 1. Fifteen days later the San Jose City Council adopted a like resolution relating to substantially the same uninhabited territory, which it designated as Stelling Number 1. Cupertino, on July 21, 1958, terminated its proceeding because of its failure to obtain the consent of certain owners of land zoned exclusively for agricultural purposes (“greenbelted”) which consent is a required condition to annexation (Gov. Code, § 35009). San Jose continued through protest hearing, but terminated its proceedings September 22, when the council, by resolution, determined that owners of more than half the value of the lands involved protested the annexation (Gov. Code, § 35313).

With the feline tendency of annexation proceedings to enjoy multiple lives, Bubb and Stelling soon revived. Cupertino, on November 3, submitted to the county boundary commission a proposal to annex substantially the same land, now termed Bubb Number la, and commission approval issued November 17. On the same day, the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.