gno.law

Kirby v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 26974 · 1969-08-29 · Published · 275 Cal. App. 2d 975 · 80 Cal. Rptr. 381 · 1969 Cal. App. LEXIS 2006

EDWARD J. KIRBY, as Director, etc. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent GIL MAR CLUB, INC., Real Party in Interest

Area
civil
Panel
Norman Elkington (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Elkington

ELKINGTON, J.

The sole issue before us is stated by the real party in interest as “The Legislature, by virtue of the enactment of section 23090.5 of the Business and Professions Code, has unconstitutionally curtailed the jurisdiction of the superior court to issue writs of mandamus. ’ ’

This question has been resolved by the case of Department of Alcoholic Bev. Control v. Superior Court, 268 Cal.App.2d 67 [73 Cal.Rptr. 780], Considering the same arguments here raised, the court concluded (p. 75) that the provisions of section 23090.5 “divesting the superior courts of jurisdiction to review decisions or orders of the Board or Department or to interfere with the operation or execution of such decisions or orders are constitutional.” We are in agree*976ment with the rationale of the court and consider the result reached dispositive of the instant proceedings. (See also Department of Alcoholic Bev. Control v. Superior Court, 268 Cal.App.2d 7 [73 Cal.Rptr. 671] ; Samson Market Co. v. Kirby, 261 Cal.App.2d 577 [68 Cal.Rptr. 130].)

Let the peremptory writ of prohibition issue.

Molinari, P. J., and Sims, J., concurred.

The petition of the real party in interest for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 22, 1969. Peters, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by