Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 1942

Citation
Section 1942
Parent Document
Kriz v. Taylor, 92 Cal. App. 3d 302 (1979)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1979-04-25

Other Sections in This Document (80)

Full Text

750 chars
Nor does the legislative history support Tenant’s interpretation of the statute. She has provided us with a declaration by Pete Wilson, the author of Assembly Bill No. 2033, in which he stated that he “meant to give tenants a 60-day period of respite in which they could not be bothered in any way by their landlords except for good cause,” and that this included suffering a “notice to quit.” The understanding of former Assemblyman Wilson does not per se expose the Legislature’s intent in the passage of the final bill. “In construing a statute we do not consider the motives or understandings of individual legislators who cast their votes in favor of it. (In re Lavine (1935) 2 Cal.2d 324, 327 [41 P.2d 161, 42 P.2d 311]; Bragg v. City of Auburn