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
555 charsat p. 1263.) In upholding the rent reduction the court rejected the landlord’s argument that there must exist a component of willful neglect or affirmative wrongdoing on the part of the landlord to justify a decrease in rent. It held that the statute’s plain meaning required only a finding that there had been “a substantial change in the services or facilities provided by the landlord. It does not require that the Rent Administrator look beyond the substantial change to ascertain whether an affirmative act by the landlord caused the change.” (Ibid.)