Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
, Counsel Norman S. Stimmel and Russell H. McLain for Real Party in Interest.
1DissentRichardson, J.
I respectfully dissent. Neither the California mechanics’ lien law (Civ. Code, § 3109 et seq.) nor the stop notice procedures applicable to private construction (id, § 3156 et seq.) meet the due process requirements of the United States Constitution as recently interpreted by the federal Supreme Court and by us. Both creditor’s remedies fail to afford those minimal protections currently mandated and are, in my view, unconstitutional under the reasoning of federal and state decisions following the important case of Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. (1969) 395 U.S. 337 [23 L.Ed.2d 349, 89 S.Ct.…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Edelman v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Arnett v. KennedySupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay ViewSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.