Schweiger v. Superior Court, 476 P.2d 97 (1970)

Citation: Schweiger v. Superior Court, 476 P.2d 97 (1970)
Parent Document: Schweiger v. Superior Court, 476 P.2d 97 (1970)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1970-11-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2610738/schweiger-v-superior-court/ ↗

Full Text

1,150 chars

Undeniably, as the real party in interest insists, Abstract Investment is distinguishable on its facts: it recognized a constitutional defense to a summary eviction, rather than a defense based on statutory rights. Nevertheless, *515it is difficult to rationalize a result in which a tenant’s statutory rights are deemed so inconsequential as to permit him to be evicted because he opts for their exercise. The same interest in “substantial justice” protected in Abstract Investment demands that a landlord be prevented from invoking judicial assistance to punish a tenant by eviction because the tenant sought to exercise rights expressly granted by statute. And the right not to be deprived in court of home and shelter because of the exercise of statutory rights is a “broad equitable principle” as deserving of protection as the right to equal protection under the law. Thus, the sound reasoning of Abstract Investment, which imposes an equitable limitation on the punitive power of landlords to evict their tenants, applies with persuasive force to the instant action to prohibit eviction in retaliation against the exercise of statutory rights.

Other Sections in This Document (98)

Full Text