Supreme Court of California

In a constitutional challenge to defendant-city's zoning ordinance, which, in order to protect the economic viability of the city's downtown commercial district, prohibits the sale of furniture in another commercial district in the city, a court of appeal's ruling finding the ordinance unconstitutional is reversed as: 1) the court of appeal's analysis failed to adequately take into account two legitimate purposes underlying the ordinance in question; and 2) restricting the ordinance's limited exception for the sale of furniture within the controlled district, to sales by large department stores, was rationally related to a legislative purpose served by the ordinance.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/07/2007
• Published 06/07/2007

Judges

• GEORGE, C.J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Motschiedler, Michaelides & Wishon and Russell K. Ryan, Fresno, for Plaintiffs and Appellants., Deborah J. La Fetra and Timothy Sandefur, Sacramento, for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Howard Rice Nemerovski, Canady Falk & Rabkin, Steven L. Mayer, San Francisco;  Kahn, Soares & Conway, Michael J. Noland, Hanford, and Rissa A. Stuart, for Defendants and Respondents., Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy and Thomas B. Brown, San Francisco, for League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.