Legal Opinion
Sandpiper Mobile Village v. City of Carpinteria
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 15, 1992No. B058435PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GILBERT, J.
Here we uphold the rent control ordinance of the City of Carpintería because: (1) it does not exact a compensable physical taking of the property of appellant, Sandpiper Mobile Village (Yee v. Escondido (1992) 503 U.S. _ [118 L.Ed.2d 153, 112 S.Ct. 1522]), (2) it is rational and serves a legitimate public purpose and therefore does not violate substantive due process, and (3) on its face it validly regulates mobilehome rent.
We do not consider its validity as applied because Sandpiper did not allege requisite facts in its complaint to raise this issue.
Background and…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- City of Cotati v. CashmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Santa Monica Beach, Ltd. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- People Ex Rel. Kennedy v. Beaumont Investment, Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 2003
- PARKOWNERS ASS'N v. City of MontclairCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Travis v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.