Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Galland v. City of Clovis

California Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 2001No. S080670Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

JONES, J.,* Concurring and Dissenting.—

The majority holds, and I agree, that Clovis and its rent commission may have violated the Gallands’ substantive due process rights, in violation of 42 United States Code section 1983 (section 1983),1 by subjecting them to an arbitrary and unreasonably burdensome rent adjustment process. Relying on Silverman v. Barry (D.C. Cir. 1988) 845 F.2d 1072 and Roy v. City of Augusta, Maine (1st Cir. 1983) 712 F.2d 1517, the majority articulates an appropriate substantive due process standard for determining when an administrative process is so onerous as to…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Zinermon v. BurchSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Felder v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Burnett v. GrattanSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

24 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