Held to be unnecessary for zoning enforcement officer to allege and prove irreparable harm and lack of an adequate legal remedy in order for injunction to issue. 1 CA 176. Cited. Id., 285; 2 CA 515; 4 CA 252. Application of prior pending action rule to bar action under section is neither equitable nor just where prior action was brought under Sec. 8-6. 9 CA 534. Cited. 10 CA 41; Id., 190; 15 CA 550; 17 CA 17; judgment reversed, see 212 C. 570; Id., 344; 19 CA 208; 28 CA 379; 41 CA 89; 46 CA 5. Imposition of fine for violation of zoning ordinance when defendant also violated State Building Code not double jeopardy since zoning ordinance and code are distinct and fines characterized as remedial; there is a legitimate remedial purpose in imposing fines for zoning violations; such fines are civil fines, not criminal penalties. 65 CA 265. Does not require court to impose fines and to award attorney's fees, despite use of word “shall”. 78 CA 818. Because the enforcement of zoning regulations is an act performed wholly for the direct benefit of the public, it is a discretionary and not ministerial act and therefore not amenable to mandamus relief. 122 CA 465. Section does not contain any requirement to prove public nuisance as prerequisite to imposing daily fines. 187 CA 604.