People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Writing for the Court | BURKE; TRAYNOR |
| Citation | 1 Cal.3d 910,464 P.2d 126,83 Cal.Rptr. 670 |
| Parties | , 464 P.2d 126 The PEOPLE ex rel. Thomas C. LYNCH, as Attorney General, etc., Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Respondents. L.A. 29661. |
| Decision Date | 30 January 1970 |
Page 670
v.
The SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Respondents.
In Bank.
[1 Cal.3d 911] Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Herschel T. Elkins, John F. McLaren and Andrea Sheridan Ordin, Deputy Attys. Gen., for petitioner.
Brundage, Neyhart, Miller, Ross & Reich, Daniel Feins, Joe C. Ortega, Los Angeles, Eugene M. Swann and Peter N. Hagberg, Richmond, amici curiae on behalf of petitioner.
John D. Maharg, County Counsel, Edward H. Gaylord and Robert C. Lynch, Asst. County Counsel, and Michael H. Dougherty, Deputy County Counsel, for respondents.
Jones, Baxley, Crouch & McCarty, A. Morgan Jones, San Diego, James M. Conners, Vernon D. Stokes, Morrison, Foerster, Holloway, Clinton & Clark, Robert D. Raven, Paul E. Homrighausen, Alexander B. Aikman, San Francisco, Anderson, McPharlin & Conners, Peter R. Regal Jr., Charles J. Katz, Samuel W. Blum, Los Angeles, Louis C. Hoyt, Studio City, Philip M. Rosten, Los Angeles, William K. Day, San Francisco, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Samuel O. Pruitt, Jr., and John L. Endicott, Los Angeles, amici curiae on behalf of respondents.
BURKE, Justice.
The Attorney General, on behalf of the People of the State of California, seeks by
Page 671
[464 P.2d 127] petition for writ of mandate to secure a determination from this court that the provisions of section 537 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which specify the actions in which prejudgment attachment may issue, are void in their entirety. Cited in support of the petition is Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. (1969) 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed. 349. We issued an order to show cause.As ruled in the companion cases of McCallop v. Carberry, Cal., 83 Cal.Rptr. 666, 464 P.2d 122, and Cline v. Credit Bureau, Cal., 83 Cal.Rptr. 669, 464 P.2d 125, California's prejudgment wage garnishment procedures violate procedural due process requirements, under the rationale of Sniadach. Those cases deal with actual or threatened prejudgment levies upon the wages of the parties litigant, upon alleged claims of indebtedness.
In the present proceeding, however, there is before us no alleged debtor or creditor who is party to a prejudgment attachment of any property whatsoever, wages or otherwise, and who seeks relief with respect thereto. [1 Cal.3d 912] The Attorney General avers that 'The various...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Lynch v. San Diego Unified School Dist.
...of legislative restriction he deems necessary for the protection of public rights and interests.' (People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.3d 910, 912, fn. 1, 83 Cal.Rptr. 670, 671, 464 P.2d 126, 127.) It is in the public interest to require a school district to comply with the provis......
-
Border Business Park v. City of San Diego, No. E035881.
...on cases which are not before us would be advisory and therefore beyond our jurisdiction. (People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 910, 912, 83 Cal.Rptr. 670, 464 P.2d 126; Denny's, Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills (1997) 56 Cal. App.4th 1312, 1329, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d The judgments o......
-
City of Moorpark v. Superior Court, No. B093952
...An appellate court will not issue an opinion upon hypothetical questions of law. Page 166 (People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 910, 83 Cal.Rptr. 670, 464 P.2d 126; Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp. v. United Automobile, etc. Workers (1946) 27 Cal.2d 859, 862-863, 167 P.2......
-
People ex rel. Becerra v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty., E070545
...497 There is no general "public interest" exception to the requirement of standing. In People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 910, 83 Cal.Rptr. 670, 464 P.2d 126, the attorney general sought a declaration that the state’s prejudgment attachment laws were unconstitutional. ( ......
-
People ex rel. Lynch v. San Diego Unified School Dist.
...of legislative restriction he deems necessary for the protection of public rights and interests.' (People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.3d 910, 912, fn. 1, 83 Cal.Rptr. 670, 671, 464 P.2d 126, 127.) It is in the public interest to require a school district to comply with the provis......
-
Border Business Park v. City of San Diego, No. E035881.
...on cases which are not before us would be advisory and therefore beyond our jurisdiction. (People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 910, 912, 83 Cal.Rptr. 670, 464 P.2d 126; Denny's, Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills (1997) 56 Cal. App.4th 1312, 1329, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d The judgments o......
-
City of Moorpark v. Superior Court, No. B093952
...An appellate court will not issue an opinion upon hypothetical questions of law. Page 166 (People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 910, 83 Cal.Rptr. 670, 464 P.2d 126; Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp. v. United Automobile, etc. Workers (1946) 27 Cal.2d 859, 862-863, 167 P.2......
-
People ex rel. Becerra v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty., E070545
...497 There is no general "public interest" exception to the requirement of standing. In People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 910, 83 Cal.Rptr. 670, 464 P.2d 126, the attorney general sought a declaration that the state’s prejudgment attachment laws were unconstitutional. ( ......