Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Youngblood v. Board of Supervisors of San Diego County

Supreme Court of California
586 P.2d 556 (1978)


Facts

The Board of Supervisors of San Diego County (Board) (defendant) approved a tentative subdivision map on December 10, 1974, with certain conditions, in accordance with the general map in effect at the time. On December 31, 1974, San Diego County amended its general plan to limit density in the subdivision area. Thus, when the Board approved the final subdivision map on October 25, 1975, the subdivision did not conform to the existing general plan. James Youngblood and other neighbors of the subdivision (plaintiffs) filed mandamus actions against the Board, arguing that the Board had acted illegally to approve the tentative and final maps and that the Board was required to rezone the subdivision to conform to the new general plan. The trial court affirmed the Board’s decision, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Board did rezone the subdivision while the plaintiffs’ appeal to the Supreme Court of California was pending. Therefore, the only issues to be reviewed were the approval of the tentative and final maps. The plaintiffs argued that (1) the tentative map, contrary to what the record showed, was not approved until April 1975, after the new general plan was enacted, and therefore should not have been approved because the tentative map did not conform to the existing general plan, and (2) the final map should not have been approved because the final map did not conform to the existing general plan.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Tobriner, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 173,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.