Furey v. City of Sacramento

Abstract

The justices of the California Supreme Court, their attention riveted on their own legal¹ and economic² problems, may be entering an era of erratic decision making. It has certainly seemed so lately.³ Agins and Metromedia, the cases constituting the subject of my last commentary,⁴ were rather sloppily done. Agins has now been corrected to eliminate the inadvertent hint that rezonings were administrative. Metromedia has been entirely withdrawn. As indicated in my last commentary, the court had overlooked the fact that sections of the Highway Beautification Act on which it had based part of its decision had been amended.