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
630 charsGGC has raised several constitutional challenges to the ordinance as it was applied to it. It contends that the Board’s ruling was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of GGC’s due process rights guaranteed by the California and United States Constitutions, that it was unconstitutional in that it failed to further legitimate state policy, and that it constituted an unlawful taking without just compensation. Because we have held that the Board’s decision was an incorrect application of the ordinance, we need not reach these constitutional issues. D. Appeal From Denial of Declaratory Relief * IV. Conclusion and Disposition