Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Citation
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-08-11
Other Sections in This Document (188)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
Full Text
808 charsNash involved a section of the Santa Monica City Charter that prohibited landlords from withdrawing rental units from the market absent a removal permit from the Santa Monica Rent Control Board. To obtain a removal permit, a landlord had to show that removal would not and could not displace low- or moderate-income persons, that removal would not adversely affect the city’s supply of housing, and that the landlord could not make a fair return on investment by retaining the unit. (Nash, supra, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 100-101, fn. 3.) In Nash, we rejected a due process challenge to this procedure (id. at p. 103), even though (as the dissent observed) it compelled a landlord “to remain in business against his will” and gave him “only the alternative of a forced sale.” (Id. at p. 111 (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).)