Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
, Counsel Norman S. Stimmel and Russell H. McLain for Real Party in Interest.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
TOBRINER, J.
This petition for mandate and prohibition challenges the constitutionality of California’s mechanics’ lien and stop notice laws on the ground that these laws permit the recording of a mechanics’ lien and the filing of a stop notice without a prior hearing and without adequate provision for a prompt post-lien hearing. Although we recognize that the imposition of these liens constitutes the “taking” of a significant property interest by means of state action, we shall point out that the “taking” permitted by the mechanics’ lien and stop notice laws conforms to the…
2Cases cited66 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Stanley v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Goss v. LopezSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by97 opinions
- Embree Construction Group, Inc. v. Rafcor, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
- Halbert's Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1992
- Hutnick v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
- Kash Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Gee v. EberleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
92 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.