Legal Opinion

Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 21, 1993No. B073052PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

VOGEL (Miriam A.), J.

The issue in this case is whether the City of Santa Monica Rent Control Board’s absolute limitation on annual rental increases is constitutional as applied. Our answer is that it is not.

Facts

A

In 1979, the City of Santa Monica adopted a rent control charter amendment and created an elected Rent Control Board “empowered to regulate rentals ... so that rents will not be increased unreasonably and so that landlords will receive no more than a fair return.” Pursuant to the charter amendment, the Board adopted Regulations 4100 through 4111, a “maintenance of net…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Calfarm Insurance v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Birkenfeld v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Fisher v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Kash Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  5. City of Miami Beach v. Forte Towers, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1974

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home ParkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  4. Yee v. Mobilehome Park Rental Review BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  5. City of Berkeley v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994

4 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