Legal Opinion

Bisno v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 14, 2005No. B176350PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SPENCER, P. J.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Robert Bisno appeals from a judgment declaring valid defendant Santa Monica Rent Control Board’s (Board) “Regulation 3304,” which permits landlords to petition for a rent increase on the ground that a rental unit’s tenant is not occupying it as his or her principal residence. The primary task before us is to determine whether the Board exceeded its authority in adopting Regulation 3304, thus rendering it void. We hold that the Board did not exceed its authority and that Regulation 3304 does not suffer from any other fatal infirmity. We consequently…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Delaney v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Trope v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Sanchez v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  2. Borten v. Santa Monica Rent Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. Borten v. Santa Monica Rent Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  4. Borten v. Santa Monica Rent Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  5. Fipke v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd.California Court of Appeal · 2020

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API