Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CIRO'S OF SAN FRANCISCO, a corporation, Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.
This is a motion by the attorney general to terminate the stay of execution granted by this court on July 28, 1955, to appellant under the discretionary power granted by section 1094.5(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under that section there can be no doubt that this court possesses the discretionary power to terminate the stay at any time that the court is convinced that the continuance of the stay is against the public interest. Bogart v. Board of Medical Examiners, 99 Cal.App.2d 170, 221 P.2d 168; West Coast, etc., Co. v. Contractors', etc., Board, 68 Cal.App.2d 1, 155 P.2d 863; § 1094.5(f) of Code of Civ.Proc.
Respondent has made a prima facie showing that the continuance of the stay would be against the public interest. Appellant has not seen fit to file opposition to the motion, nor, although given the opportunity, to appear before the court at an informal hearing for the purpose of opposing the motion. The facts of the case are fully set forth in our opinion filed June 28, 1956, Ciro's of San Francisco v. State Board of Equalization, Cal.App., 299 P.2d 703. From the facts set forth, and for the reasons set forth in the motion, it is our opinion that the continuance of the stay would violate public morals and public welfare, and would be against the public interest. For that reason the stay is terminated, such termination to become effective at the close of business today, Friday, July 13, 1956. It is so ordered.
PETERS, Presiding Justice.
FRED B. WOOD, J., and AGEE, J. pro tem., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 16913.
Decided: July 13, 1956
Court: District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)