Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Section 1808

Citation
Section 1808
Parent Document
McHugh v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 777 P.2d 91 (1989)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1989-08-17

Other Sections in This Document (387)

Full Text

962 chars
*385 Considering the court's statements in Block v. Hirsh, supra, 256 U.S. 135, Jones & Laughlin, supra, 301 U.S. 1, and Pernell, supra, 416 U.S. 363 — and the characterization of those cases in Atlas Roofing, supra, 430 U.S. 442 — it seems clear that the high court would view the matters at issue in this case (a claim of excess rent and adjudication thereof under the ordinance) as involving "public rights," and hence properly resolved by an administrative agency without a jury. Indeed, in a recent discussion of the public rights doctrine, the high court confirmed this view: "The Court has treated as a matter of `public right' ... an administrative proceeding to determine the rights of landlords and tenants. See Atlas Roofing [, supra, 430 U.S. at pp. 454-455], citing as an example of `public rights' the federal landlord/tenant law discussed in Block v. Hirsh, [supra, 256 U.S. 135]...." (Thomas, supra, 473 U.S. 568, 588-589 [87 L.Ed.2d at p. 425].)