Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Citation
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Parent Document
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 2012-02-16
Other Sections in This Document (60)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
- Section 1800
- 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 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1801
- Section 1801
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
- Section 1805
Full Text
1,302 charsSMP argues the trial court, in ruling on SMP’s petition for writ of administrative mandate, erred by circumscribing its consideration of the petition to an application of the substantial evidence standard of review to RGB’s factual findings. Although we agree with SMP that there is significant language in the court’s written decision showing the court’s focus on the evidence that supported RGB’s factual findings, we reject SMP’s position that the record demonstrates the court addressed SMP’s petition solely as a matter involving the substantial evidence standard of judicial review. The trial court’s written decision also includes language showing that the court considered SMP’s legal claim that RGB’s final administrative decision was “based on an incorrect interpretation of the [RCL].” In other words, the trial court’s written decision shows it addressed SMP’s petition on two fronts: (1) whether the administrative record disclosed substantial evidence supporting RGB’s factual findings and (2) whether RGB correctly interpreted and applied the law in ordering a decrease in rents. Accordingly, we decline to reverse the judgment based on SMP’s claim that the trial court erred by applying an incorrect standard of judicial review in addressing SMP’s petition. II. Statutory Interpretation