Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 550 P.2d 1001 (1976)

Citation: Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 550 P.2d 1001 (1976)
Parent Document: Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 550 P.2d 1001 (1976)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1976-06-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1193965/birkenfeld-v-city-of-berkeley/ ↗

Full Text

845 chars

seek to distinguish the Nebbia case from the instant case, and particularly call our attention to the fact that the New York statute was of a temporary duration while the California act is without any limitation as to duration, but they fail to show how this difference in the two statutes does in any way divest the legislature of the power to protect an industry from a perilous condition which is permanent in character. Furthermore, the rule appears to be well established that, ‘Failure by the legislature to limit the operation of the law to a definite term does not render the law invalid so long as the conditions which justify the passage of the law remain.’ (People by Van Schaick v. Title & Mortgage Guarantee Co., 264 N.Y. 69 [190 N.E. 153, 96 A.L.R. 297].)” (Jersey Maid Milk Products Co. v. Brock, supra, 13 Cal.2d at pp. 637-638.)

Other Sections in This Document (374)

Full Text