San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2018)

Citation: San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2018)
Parent Document: San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2018)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2018-02-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4467961/san-francisco-apartment-assn-v-... ↗

Full Text

928 chars

2
 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 [“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 [“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”].)
3
  The Ordinance applies to all children under 18, whether or not they are currently
attending school or day care. The Property Owners have raised no challenge specifically
targeting this aspect of the Ordinance, nor have they raised any challenge other than state
law preemption.

Other Sections in This Document (23)

Full Text