Section 37
- Citation
- Section 37
- Parent Document
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 1999-08-02
Other Sections in This Document (49)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
Full Text
771 charsThe issue presented is one of first impression in California. Each side has presented a case from another jurisdiction involving a similar rent control provision. Neither case is particularly helpful or persuasive in the matter before us, as neither involved the precise question presented here: Does interference with housing services resulting from reasonably necessary repair and maintenance to rental units, without a substantial impact upon the right to occupy the premises as a residence, represent a decrease in services justifying a corresponding reduction in rent under the ordinance? We hold that it does not. GGC, for its part, urges us to embrace the reasoning in Doric Realty Co. v. Union City Rent Bd. (1981)-182 N.J.Super. 486 [442 A.2d 652] (Doric). Doric