California Court of Appeal

Trial court's denial of plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate seeking to invalidate an ordinance requiring annual inspections of all residential rental properties within city limits, is affirmed as the trial court did not err where: 1) in finding of no equal protection violation in that the ordinance was rationally related to city's legitimate purpose of ensuring a stock of "safe, decent and sanitary rental housing,"; 2) in finding that the ordinance was not preempted by state law because it did not set up any new or different standards and did not duplicate procedures; and 3) the fee provisions did not violate Proposition 218 and were expressly exempt from the broadened definition of "tax" provided Proposition 26.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/16/2012
• Published 07/16/2012

Judges

• Premo

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel