# Steiger v. Board of Supervisors

> California Court of Appeal · July 23, 1956 · 143 Cal. App. 2d 352

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9624695

## Case

- **Full name:** WALT A. STEIGER, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** July 23, 1956
- **Citations:** 143 Cal. App. 2d 352; 300 P.2d 210; 1956 Cal. App. LEXIS 1609
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wood
- **Judges:** Wood, Vallée
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9624695

## Opinion text

WOOD (Parker), J.
I concur in the judgment. Although the board of supervisors followed the strict “letter of the law,” as proclaimed in its ordinance allegedly providing for notice to property owners, the ordinance is one which, for all practical purposes of giving notice and according “due process of law” to property owners, is a total failure. The fact is that, regardless of the legal formalism of complying with an inadequate ordinance, there was no notice to the property owners as a result of the newspaper notice. There was evidence that the Culver City newspaper did not have any circulation in the area involved here. The policy of fair dealing *360 requires that a notice, which is calculated to give notice, should be given to property owners whose rights will be affected by spot zoning. If local political subdivisions cannot enact ordinances providing for adequate notice in such cases, it would seem that the matter should have the attention of the Legislature.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9624695. Public record. Not legal advice.