Hill Academy v. Portland

2 Citing cases

  1. Perepletchikoff v. City of Los Angeles

    174 Cal.App.2d 697 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)   Cited 16 times
    In Perepletchikoff v. City of Los Angeles, 345 P.2d 261, the condition was that where there was a nonconforming use the owner had a choice of allowing demolition under police power or so repairing the building that it conformed to the zoning laws.

    " (Emphasis added.) (To same effect, see Bettey v. City of Sidney (Mont.), supra, 257 P. 1007, 1009-1010; Hill Military Academy v. City of Portland, 152 Ore. 272 [ 53 P.2d 55, 60]; 62 C.J.S. § 225(b), p. 412.) This appears to be a valid distinction, one applicable to the ordinance now under consideration.

  2. In re Glenn-Colusa Irr. Dist.

    62 F. Supp. 651 (N.D. Cal. 1945)

    In Miller v. McKenna, 23 Cal.2d 774, 782, 147 P.2d 531, 536, it used this language: 'Among the jurisdictional requisites are * * * sufficient notice and opportunity for hearing to constitute compliance with due process.'         The type of notice to which a party is entitled is indicated in Hill Military Academy v. Portland, 152 Or. 272, 53 P.2d 55, 58, wherein it is said that he must be notified of the time and place of hearing, and that he shall have a right to be present and make objections. No such opportunity was given the moving party herein.