Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Drouet v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided August 11, 2003No. S096161Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

MORENO, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I agree with the majority that the judgment of the Court of Appeal must be reversed. The Court of Appeal erroneously held that “in unlawful detainer proceedings properly commenced under the Ellis Act, a tenant may not raise an affirmative defense of retaliatory eviction.” The Ellis Act (Gov. Code, § 7060 et seq.) expressly provides that it does not supersede Civil Code section 1942.5, which offers tenants protection against retaliatory eviction. The Ellis Act underscores this point by further stating that it is not intended to “[ojverride procedural…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Birkenfeld v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Folsom v. Butte County Assn. of GovernmentsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Yvonne C. Edwards v. Nathan HabibCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
  4. City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  5. California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995

9 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