Legal Opinion
Hillsboro Properties v. City of Rohnert Park
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 6, 2006No. A110441PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
POLLAK, J.
A property owner is prevented from charging increased rent by a rent control ordinance that is subsequently determined to be unconstitutional. Is the owner entitled to recover the lost rental income, either from its tenants or from the city that imposed the limit, if the ordinance did not deny the owner a fair return on its investment? We hold that it is not.
In 1987, the City of Rohnert Park (the city) passed a rent control ordinance that limited the amount by which a landlord of a mobilehome park could raise rents. Plaintiffs Hillsboro Properties and Goldstone Enterprises,…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Carey v. PiphusSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- City of Los Angeles v. HellerSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Besaro Mobile Home Park v. City of FremontCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012