Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Rich v. Schwab, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 170 (1998)

Citation
Rich v. Schwab, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 170 (1998)
Parent Document
Rich v. Schwab, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 170 (1998)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1998-06-01

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text

629 chars
Nonetheless in his first argument on appeal, Schwab contends that because he was not in the business of renting dwellings, he was not subject to liability under section 1942.5, subdivision (c). Two important principles of statutory interpretation conflict with this argument: the requirement we consider first and foremost the plain meaning of a statute and the requirement that "`"A statute must be construed `in the context of the entire statutory system of which it is a part, in order to achieve harmony among the parts.' [Citation.]"'" (Unzueta v. Ocean View School Dist. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1695, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 614.)