Section 789
- Citation
- Section 789
- Parent Document
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 1978-09-28
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1160324/hale-v-morgan/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (116)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Hale v. Morgan, 584 P.2d 512 (1978)
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
- Section 789
Full Text
1,116 charsFurthermore, 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]).