S.F. Apartment Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 124 (2018)

Citation: S.F. Apartment Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 124 (2018)
Parent Document: S.F. Apartment Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 124 (2018)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2018-02-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6239406/sf-apartment-assn-v-city-cnty-of-sf/ ↗

Full Text

680 chars

Indeed, the procedural-substantive distinction is elusive at best. (See Hambrecht & Quist Venture Partners v. American Medical Internat., Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1542, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 33 ["the substance-procedure terminology is problematic because those labels are difficult to apply as mutually exclusive categories"]; People v. Flaherty (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1139, 1143, 273 Cal.Rptr. 29 ["The determination whether a given law makes a procedural or substantive change can be difficult."]; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Actions, § 45 [describing "the difficult and controversial preliminary determination whether the matter is one of procedure or substance"].)

Other Sections in This Document (32)

Full Text