Laserfiche WebLink
1 " I has burn aptly said: 'If we gay with Mr. Justice <br />Holmes, Ivlen must turn square corners when they ceal <br />2 with the Government, I' it i.. hare to Mee why the govern-ment <br />should not be held. to a lime standard of rectangular rectitude <br />3 wb.en dealing with its citizens. <br />i <br />4 48 Harvard Law Review, 1299; <br />5 Farrell vs. County of Place-, 23 C:.(2ci) 624, 628. <br />6 <br />7 The pe;titionel herein shows that petitioner extended. large sums <br />8 I of -ir_oney andi incurred new liability in reliance upon the conduct of the City <br />9i Council of the Citv of San Leanure and other of its officers and' agents. <br />10 such, a case, the rule of not only this, but also other jurisdictions, is that <br />11 the municip:.;,1 corporation is ,;ubjett to thi doctrine of estoppel. <br />12 1 A.L.R. (2) 338. <br />13 It is not necessary that petitioner presa t case authority exactly in <br />14 point on the f3ct4. It is enough that equity wa(] justice require the ;writ tc: <br />15 issue. <br />16 Housing Authority of the City of limos Angeles vs. City <br />of -Los Inge es, u � c?j6 <br />17 <br />18 The instant case, however, is very similar in some aspects to the <br />15 case just cited:. <br />20 Some of the leading cases setting forth iac-cual situations which <br />211 authorize estoppel a -re as follows: <br />22 iLa Societe Francaise vs. California m Em to e nt <br />P Y <br />Commission, 5 <br />23 limes-lvirror Co. Yes. Superior Court, 3 (2�) 309; <br />24 McGee v. City o Los Angeles, Ti Cam) 390; <br />City o Los k�igeles vs. County of Los Angeles,9 �;. (2a) 62=; <br />25 ;.ity of Los Angeles vs. Cohn, 101 al.3 <br />26 Respectfully submittea, <br />27 SPRUANC. & SIMGNIAN an,-- <br />AR'rHUTTA L. PR.ETZ.ER <br />28 <br />29 By AR.THUR L. PRETZER <br />Attorney- sfor Petitioner <br />30I <br />31� <br />SPRUANCE & SIMONIAN <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br />1514 WASHINGTON AVE. 3. <br />PELTON (ENTER <br />SAN LEANDRO, CALIF. <br />LOCKHAVEN 9-1301 <br />