Section 1805
- Citation
- Section 1805
- Parent Document
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 1985-05-15
Other Sections in This Document (94)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
Full Text
667 charsFinally, respondent avers the superior court erred and exceeded its jurisdiction in compelling respondent to follow its judgment in all pending and future rent decrease cases. In the absence of a certified class declaratory action, those portions of a judgment which purport to decide issues with respect to all pending and future actions, rather than simply the one then before the court, are beyond the jurisdiction of the court. (Bayside Manor, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 51, 53 [190 Cal.Rptr. 76].) Consequently, the superior court did exceed its jurisdiction in purporting to bind respondent in all pending and future rent decrease cases.