Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco
California Court of Appeal
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
REARDON, J. *
Small Property Owners of San Francisco, Jess Pacías, Dan A. Evans, and John Lockley, on behalf of themselves and a class of San Francisco landlords, appeal from a judgment entered after trial. The trial court ruled that an ordinance of respondent City and County of San Francisco (City), which required landlords to pay tenants interest on security deposits at a rate of 5 percent, did not effect a taking under the California Constitution or the United States Constitution. Appellants contend that the court erred in this conclusion and, in reaching its decision, erred in…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Agins v. City of TiburonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of EaganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- Bottini v. City of San Diego, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Bottini v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
- Brooks v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2025
- Nicholas Honchariw v. County of StanislausDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.