Miller v. City of Arcadia

Good Law
121 Cal. App. 660·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 1234·9 P.2d 587
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 16, 1932Docket No. 8245.California1,034 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant municipal corporation, the members of the city council and the chief of police, to obtain a judgment enjoining the defendants from enforcing against him the provisions of a certain ordinance on the ground as he claimed, that the ordinance was unreasonable and violated provisions of the state Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution. The defendants answered and a trial was had before the trial court sitting without a jury. The trial court made copious findings and from the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff has appealed.

Section 1 of the ordinance complained of provides as follows: “That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to keep more than three dogs, over the age of six months each, in any place in said city of Arcadia, within two hundred and fifty feet of any dwelling house in use or occupied by human beings other than a dwelling house belonging to the owner of such dogs.” Among other things the trial court found that the City of Arcadia is a municipal corporation organized under the general statute as a city of the sixth class; that the property owned by the plaintiff…

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.