Chas. L. Harney, Inc. v. Contractors' State License Bd.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Writing for the Court | GIBSON; EDMONDS |
| Citation | 247 P.2d 913,39 Cal.2d 561 |
| Parties | CHAS. L. HARNEY, Inc. v. CONTRACTORS' STATE LICENSE BOARD et al. S. F. 18224. |
| Decision Date | 23 September 1952 |
Page 913
v.
CONTRACTORS' STATE LICENSE BOARD et al.
[39 Cal.2d 562] Gardiner Johnson, Roy D. Reese and Thomas E. Stanton, Jr., San Francisco, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and J. Albert Hutchinson, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents.
GIBSON, Chief Justice.
This appeal was taken from a judgment on the pleadings for defendants in an action for declaratory relief, and the sole question to be determined is whether plaintiff corporation has alleged facts which entitle it to a declaration of its rights and duties.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff is licensed as a general engineering contractor and is qualified to perform all types of construction requiring special skill, including
Page 914
all classifications of 'specialty contract work' as defined in the Business [39 Cal.2d 563] and Professions Code. 1 Defendant board has adopted a regulation, rule 732, which subdivides all specialty contracting work into 31 classes and requires a separate license to perform each class of work. 2 The board has informed plaintiff that all general engineering contractors, prior to bidding on, contracting for or performing any class of work referred to in the rule must apply for and obtain the specialty licenses required thereby. The several departments, divisions and agencies of the state and all political subdivisions having to do with public work have been notified that general engineering contractors have no right to bid on, contract for or perform specialty construction work unless they are holders of the appropriate specialty licenses. Plaintiff corporation has never applied for any specialty licenses, and it asks for a declaratory judgment with respect to its right to perform the types and classifications of work referred to in rule 732.There is no statute which requires licensed general engineering contractors to obtain additional specialty licenses as a condition to performing the types of jobs which are listed in rule 732, and it is not claimed that the rule requires such additional licenses where the general engineering contractors undertake specialty work as a part of a larger project which they are entitled to perform. The rule, however, operates to prohibit a licensed general contractor from undertaking any contract which involves specialty work alone, unless the general contractor first obtains the appropriate specialty license. [39 Cal.2d 564] Plaintiff, by this action in declaratory relief, is seeking to test the validity of the administrative regulation.
Section 1060 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that an interested person may obtain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central Valley Chap. 7 Step Foundation v. Younger
...of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Young (1970) 2 Cal.3d 259, 263, 85 Cal.Rptr. 1, 466 P.2d 225; Chas. L. Harney, Inc. v. Contractors' Bd. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 561, 564, 247 P.2d 913; California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 253 Cal.App.2d 16, 24-25, 61 Cal.Rptr. 618.) Even if we ......
-
City of Tiburon v. Northwestern Pac. R. Co.
...23 Cal.2d 719, 729-- 730, 146 P.2d 673, 678, 151 A.L.R. 1062. See also, Chas. L. Harney, Inc. v. Contractors' State License Bd. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 561, 564, 247 P.2d 913; Burke v. City, etc., of San Francisco, supra, 258 Cal.App.2d 32, 34, 65 Cal.Rptr. 539; Travers v. Louden, supra, 254 Cal.A......
-
Colberg, Inc. v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Works
...be tested by the same rules. (Dragna v. White (1955) 45 Cal.2d 469, 470, 289 P.2d 428; Chas. L. Harney, Inc. v. Contractors' Bd. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 561, 565, 247 P.2d 913.) Since the motion was used to perform the function of a general demurrer, it 'reaches only to the contents of the pleadin......
-
Chiatello v. City, A126234
...criminal prosecution or [professional] disciplinary action" by a licensing board (Chas. L. Harney, Inc. v Contractors' Bd. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 561, 564; see Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Cal. State Bd. of Pharmacy (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 229), or loss of statutory benefits (Pacific Legal Foundation......
-
Central Valley Chap. 7 Step Foundation v. Younger
...of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Young (1970) 2 Cal.3d 259, 263, 85 Cal.Rptr. 1, 466 P.2d 225; Chas. L. Harney, Inc. v. Contractors' Bd. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 561, 564, 247 P.2d 913; California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 253 Cal.App.2d 16, 24-25, 61 Cal.Rptr. 618.) Even if we ......
-
City of Tiburon v. Northwestern Pac. R. Co.
...23 Cal.2d 719, 729-- 730, 146 P.2d 673, 678, 151 A.L.R. 1062. See also, Chas. L. Harney, Inc. v. Contractors' State License Bd. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 561, 564, 247 P.2d 913; Burke v. City, etc., of San Francisco, supra, 258 Cal.App.2d 32, 34, 65 Cal.Rptr. 539; Travers v. Louden, supra, 254 Cal.A......
-
Colberg, Inc. v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Works
...be tested by the same rules. (Dragna v. White (1955) 45 Cal.2d 469, 470, 289 P.2d 428; Chas. L. Harney, Inc. v. Contractors' Bd. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 561, 565, 247 P.2d 913.) Since the motion was used to perform the function of a general demurrer, it 'reaches only to the contents of the pleadin......
-
Chiatello v. City, A126234
...criminal prosecution or [professional] disciplinary action" by a licensing board (Chas. L. Harney, Inc. v Contractors' Bd. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 561, 564; see Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Cal. State Bd. of Pharmacy (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 229), or loss of statutory benefits (Pacific Legal Foundation......