People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)

Citation: People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
Parent Document: People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1988-02-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2135742/people-ex-rel-smith-v-parkmerced-co/ ↗

Full Text

1,424 chars

Since neither the $65 new tenant fee nor the $50 transfer fee were applied to any of the purposes permitted by subdivision (b) of section 1950.5, they were required to be refunded. (5a)
Appellant contends section 1950.5 is unconstitutionally vague because the definition of "security" is so broad it encompasses every payment a tenant makes. (6) "`[A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.'" (People v. Barksdale (1972) 8 Cal.3d 320, 327 [105 Cal.Rptr. 1, 503 P.2d 257], citing Connally v.General Const. Co. (1926) 269 U.S. 385, 391 [70 L.Ed. 322, 328, 46 S.Ct. 126].) Statutes "must be sufficiently clear as to give a fair warning of the conduct prohibited, and must provide a standard or guide against which conduct can be uniformly judged by courts and administrative agencies. [Citation.]" (Morrison
v. State Board of Education (1969) 1 Cal.3d 214, 231 [82 Cal.Rptr. 175, 461 P.2d 375].) However, "reasonable certainty is all that is required" (In re Marriage of Walton (1972)28 Cal.App.3d 108, 116 [104 Cal.Rptr. 472]), and statutes must be interpreted, if possible, to preserve their constitutionality. (Department of Corrections v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(1979) 23 Cal.3d 197, 207 [152 Cal.Rptr. 345, 589 P.2d 853].)

Other Sections in This Document (65)

Full Text