Each person who maintains, permits, or allows a public nuisance to exist upon his or her property or premises, and each person occupying or leasing the property or premises of another who maintains, permits, or allows a public nuisance to exist on the property, after reasonable notice in writing from a health officer, district attorney, city attorney, or city prosecutor to remove, discontinue, or abate the public nuisance has been served upon the person, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The existence of the public nuisance for each and every day after the service of the notice is a separate and distinct offense, and it is the duty of the district attorney, or the city attorney or city prosecutor of any city the
charter of which imposes the duty upon the city attorney or city prosecutor to prosecute state misdemeanors, to continuously prosecute all persons guilty of violating this section until the nuisance is abated and
removed.
Notes of Decisions
City of Bakersfield v. Miller, 410 P.2d 393 (Cal. 1966).
“, § 731) and to impose criminal sanctions upon those maintaining public nuisances (Pen. Code, § 373a) it seems evident that Government Code section 38771 does more than permit cities to adopt as municipal ordinances provisions which have already been enacted as state statutes;…”
Martin v. Mun. Court, 148 Cal. App. 3d 693 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983).
“340 ]; Pen. Code, § 373a.) The fact that the nuisance is ultimately removed does not exonerate the offender from prosecution.”
Montgomery v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. App. 3d 657 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975).
“” 9 Penal Code section 373a provides that the maintenance of a public nuisance is a misdemeanor, and that “it is hereby made the duty of the district attorney, or the city attorney of any city the charter of which imposes the duty upon the city attorney' to prosecute state…”
Towers v. Shasta Cnty., No. C070825 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2014). · cites it 4× “While not entirely discernible from the opening brief, plaintiffs concede in their reply that the District Attorney indeed constitutes a state actor for purposes of Section 1983 and that the County is not liable for the District Attorney’s prosecutorial decision not to institute…”
Wheeler v. App. Div., 72 Cal. App. 5th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “Nuisance Finally, the state’s general nuisance statute, Penal Code section 373a, could also apply in situations where a landlord allows unlicensed commercial cannabis activity to occur on his or her property.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.