Legal Opinion

Klarfeld v. Berg

California Supreme Court

Decided September 10, 1981No. L.A. 31376PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MOSK, J.

The City of Los Angeles has adopted an ordinance to control rental increases in “rental units.” The sole issue in this action is whether that term applies to a room in a retirement residence in which the tenant, for a single charge, receives such services as meals, transportation and maid service, in addition to lodging. The trial court determined that a residence which provides such “amenities and facilities” is not within the rent regulation law and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, the operator of the facility.

On August 30, 1978, the city enacted ordinance No.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  2. People Ex Rel. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission v. Town of EmeryvilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  3. County of Placer v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Isobe v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. HaightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
  2. Carter v. CohenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. Gipe v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
  4. Fahlgren v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  5. Bayside Manor, Inc. v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983

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