Petitioner challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County (California), which denied a petition for a writ of mandate to compel respondent tax collector to make certain tax records regularly available for inspection by petitioner.
Petitioner purchased properties with delinquent taxes and resold them for profit. The delinquent tax abstracts, under the exclusive control of tax collector, for a period of time were not accessible for public examination, with the exception of title companies. After petitioner's demand of tax collector for greater access to abstracts was rejected, the trial court ordered an alternative writ of mandate to issue, and a hearing was had on the order to show cause. The mandate was denied. Petitioner Los Angeles small business lawyer appealed disputing amended regulations. The court concluded procedural rules required the court in mandamus proceedings to apprise itself of facts that arose after pleadings which rendered the dispute moot or made the remedy useless. The court rejected the argument that the statutes required tax collector to suspend official duties while petitioner examined the books in aid of his private business. The court therefore held that the rights created by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1892 and Cal. Gov't Code § 1227, were, by their very nature, not absolute, but were subject to an implied rule of reason protecting the broadest application of the public right of inspection.
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Plaintiff migrant workers challenged the decision of the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), which sustained defendant ranches' demurer without leave to amend in plaintiffs' action seeking an injunction prohibiting defendants from knowingly employee illegal entrants.
The order of the trial court was reversed because it was abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to set aside the default judgment because appellant did not have actual or constructive notice of the interrogatories and because attorney's conduct constituted extrinsic fraud.
Defendants appealed their convictions in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County (California) for kidnapping and rape. Defendants argued that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on "consent" and should have granted their motion for mistrial based on references to lie detector tests made by prosecution witnesses. Defendant robber argued that he was denied his right to a speedy trial and a jury instruction on lesser included offenses.
Plaintiff migrant workers appealed the trial court's dismissal of their action due to failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs sought an injunction prohibiting defendant ranches from knowingly employing illegal entrants. The trial court granted defendants' demurer without leave to amend. Defendants admitted that they knowingly employed Mexican entrants. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants' actions constituted an unlawful or unfair practice under Cal. Civ. Code § 3369. The court noted that plaintiffs were theoretically the intended beneficiaries of the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101. The domestic farm workers' need for protection against job competition of illegal entrants was undeniable, and the public benefit of that protection palpable. The court determined, however, that the injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs would subject farm operators to a burdensome regulation, and the courts to burdensome enforcement responsibilities. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's decision.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of plaintiffs migrant workers' request for an injunction because the court determined that enjoining defendant ranches from employing illegal entrants would be an unduly burdensome regulation for defendants and courts would be burdened with enforcement responsibilities.