Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 789

Citation
Section 789
Parent Document
Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1978-09-28

Other Sections in This Document (116)

Full Text

1,116 chars
Furthermore, even if the issue had not been properly presented to the trial court, we may nonetheless examine the validity of the statute under which penalties herein have been assessed. We have held that a litigant may raise for the first time on appeal a pure question of law which is presented by undisputed facts. (Ward v. Taggart (1959) 51 Cal.2d 736, 742 [336 P.2d 534]; see also California Sch. Employees Assn. v. Sunnyvale Elementary Sch. Dist. (1973) 36 Cal. App.3d 46, 56 [111 Cal. Rptr. 433].) Moreover, although California authorities on the point are not uniform, our courts have several times examined constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal, especially when the enforcement of a penal statute is involved (e.g., People v. Allen (1974) 41 Cal. App.3d 196, 201 [115 Cal. Rptr. 839]), the asserted error fundamentally affects the validity of the judgment (e.g., People v. Norwood (1972) 26 Cal. App.3d 148, 152-153 [103 Cal. Rptr. 7]), or important issues of public policy are at issue (e.g., Bayside Timber Co. v. Board of Supervisors (1971) 20 Cal. App.3d 1, 4-5 [97 Cal. Rptr. 431]).