Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
RUSS BUILDING PARTNERSHIP, Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent.
PACIFIC GATEWAY ASSOCIATES, JOINT VENTURE, Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent.
CROCKER NATIONAL BANK et al., Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent.
Petitions for review GRANTED.
Pursuant to rule 29.2(b) of the California Rules of Court, review is limited to and briefs on the merits are to be confined to the following issues, discussed in Part V of the opinion of the Court of Appeal: (1) whether extrinsic evidence is relevant for interpreting the building permit; and (2) whether the permit, properly interpreted, gave adequate notice to appellants of the development fee imposed after the permits were issued.
Review shall not extend to the issues raised in the answers to the petitions for review.
MOSK, BROUSSARD, ARGUELLES and KAUFMAN, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 30, 1987
Court: Supreme Court of California,In Bank.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)