Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)

Citation: Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)
Parent Document: Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2006-08-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2255746/small-property-owners-v-city-co... ↗

Full Text

671 chars

It could be said that landlords have a property interest in the security deposit, in the sense that they may have a contractual right to hold the funds during the tenancy as security against tenant default and may use the deposit to defray costs of tenant damáges. (Civ. Code, § 1950.5, subds. (b), (d).) This property interest, however, is not alleged by appellants to be affected by the Ordinance, and is therefore immaterial to our analysis. 4 Thus, the cases on which appellants rely—Brown, supra, 538 U.S. 216, Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith (1980) 449 U.S. 155 [66 L.Ed.2d 358, 101 S.Ct. 446] (Webb’s), and Schneider v. California Dept. of Corrections

Other Sections in This Document (187)

Full Text