Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 9-5

Citation
Section 9-5
Parent Document
Rental Housing Owners Ass'n v. City of Hayward, 200 Cal. App. 4th 81 (2011)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2011-09-30

Other Sections in This Document (55)

Full Text

797 chars
RHOA asserts that in Alviso v. Sonoma County Sheriff’s Dept. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 198 [111 Cal.Rptr.3d 775] (Alviso), we endorsed a more “lenient formulation” of the “total and fatal conflict” standard for facial challenges described by our Supreme Court in Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, supra, 9 Cal.4th 1069. Not so. We merely observed that in some cases the court had applied a formulation requiring a petitioner to demonstrate that a statutory scheme is unconstitutional only in “the ‘vast majority of its applications.’ ” (Alviso, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 205.) While we stand by our observation that, as between the two, “the ‘vast majority of its applications’ ” is a more lenient standard than a “total and fatal conflict,” our analysis here would be no different under either standard.