Schmidt v. Superior Court (1989)

(White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 775 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 94 , 533 P.2d 222 ], italics added.) Although none of our decisions has squarely addressed the question whether our state constitutional right to privacy may be enforced against private parties (we had no occasion to decide the issue in Schmidt v. Superior Court (1989) 48 Cal.3d 370, 389, fn. 14 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 750 , 769 P.2d 932 ]), the Courts of Appeal have consistently answered in the affirmative.

"While the treatment of the aged in this Nation has not been wholly free of discrimination, such persons, unlike, say, those who have been discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin, have not experienced a `history of purposeful unequal treatment' or been subjected to unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped characteristics not truly indicative of their abilities." ( 427 U.S. at p. 313 [ 96 S.Ct. at p. 2567 ]; Schmidt v. Superior Court (1989) 48 Cal…

(See, e.g., White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 776 [ 120 Cal. Rptr. 94 , 533 P.2d 222 ] [intrusion on college student's privacy *892 interest resulting from unwarranted government surveillance of classroom discussion can be justified only if compelling interest is served by the surveillance]; Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656-658 [ 125 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 542 P.2d 977 ] [intrusion on bank customer's privacy interest in bank records balanced aga…

In Schmidt v. Superior Court (1989) 48 Cal.3d 370, 383 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 750 , 769 P.2d 932 ], an opinion authored by Associate Justice Arguelles, our Supreme Court held that the Legislature, in enacting the Unruh Civil Rights Act, did not intend to overrule the provisions of Civil Code section 798.76 which permitted age discrimination in mobilehome park leasing.

That argument was put to rest in Schmidt v. Superior Court (1989) 48 Cal.3d 370, 388-390 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 750 , 769 P.2d 932 ], V In their reply brief, defendants state “The board [of HLAC] did not even bother to provide hearings for those allegedly in violation of the CC&Rs though hearings are provided for under the rules.” This issue was not pursued at trial nor on this appeal.

Code, section 51 et seq.)”]; Schmidt v. Superior Court (1989) 48 Cal.3d 370, 374, 383-387 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 750 , 769 P.2d 932 ] [the Act as “section 51 et seq.,” but only addressing section 51.2 and section 51.3 dealing with age discrimination in housing].) In Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 512-513 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 489 ], the appellate court was also presented with the relationship between the Civil Code and the Tort Claims Act.

(See Schmidt v. Superior Court (1989) 48 Cal.3d 370, 383 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 750 , 769 P.2d 932 ] [“Under traditional principles of statutory interpretation, there can be no question but that the later enacted and more specific provisions of Civil Code section 798.76 relating to adults-only rules in mobilehome parks would prevail over the more general provisions of the Unruh Act.”]; accord, Miller v. Superior *912 Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 883, 895 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 986 P.2d …

(See Schmidt v. Superior Court (1989) 48 Cal.3d 370, 382-388 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 750 , 769 P.2d 932 ].) It is against this legal backdrop that we evaluate Lazar’s first claim of error.

(See Wellenkamp v. Bank of America (1978) 21 Cal.3d 943, 948 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 379 , 582 P.2d 970 ]; Coast Bank v. Minderhout (1964) 61 Cal.2d 311, 316 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 505 , 392 P.2d 265 ], overruled on other grounds in Wellenkamp v. Bank of America, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 953 ; Schmidt v. Superior Court (1989) 48 Cal.3d 370, 390, fn. 17 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 750 , 769 P.2d 932 ].) In California, the modern struggle over restraints on alienation of leasehold interests began with Rich…

(Prowd v. Gore (1922) 57 Cal.App. 458, 461 [ 207 P. 490 ].) In 1961, the Legislature substituted the term “persons” for “citizens.” (Stats. 1961, ch. 1187, § 1, p. 2920.) 3 In Wynn v. Monterey Club (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 789, 796 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 878 ], the court held that a gambling establishment could exclude a woman with a gambling history that included writing checks against insufficient funds without violating the act. 4 In Sunrise Country Club Assn. v. Proud (1987) 190 C…

See, e.g., Schmidt v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.3d 370, 388-90 , 256 Cal.Rptr. 750 , 769 P.2d 932 (1989) (strongly suggesting that a zoning ordinance would violate the California Constitution if it imposed, as opposed to permitted, age restrictions which precluded families with children from residing in areas greater than or equal in size to a “neighborhood”); cf. City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, 27 Cal.3d 123, 133 , 164 Cal.Rptr. 539 , 610 P.2d 436 (1980) ("In general, zoning…

See Cal.Civ.Code §§ 51-52; Order filed December 12,1995 at 6, n. 2. 6 Nonetheless, a conclusion that the statute is not directly applicable does not foreclose a determination that it may form the basis for suit under the California doctrine which provides a cause of action for money damages based on tortious conduct that “contravenes the dictates of fundamental public policy.” See Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal.3d 65, 89, 276 Cal.Rptr. 130 , 801 P.2d 373 (1990); see also Schmidt v. …

See Schmidt, 48 Cal.3d at 390 (mobilehome park rule limiting residence to persons 25 years or older did not violate constitutional right to family privacy as it was neither irrational nor arbitrary); Wilkinson, 215 Cal.App.3d at 1047, 1051 (employer's preemployment drug testing policy did not violate constitutional right to privacy under reasonableness test); Miller, 143 Cal.App.3d at 346-48 (municipal pawnbroker regulations requiring customers' fingerprints did not violate …

(Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1135 , 1158–1159; see also Schmidt v. Superior Court (1989) 48 Cal.3d 370, 373 [federal legislation rendering invalid, in future mobile home park, a policy restricting residency to persons 25 years old or older did not moot appeal challenging policy, where plaintiffs sought damages for enforcement of rule prior to effective date of federal legislation]; Vernon v. State of California (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 114…

Rather, HUD’s regulations were intended, for example, to assist in the evaluation of administrative complaints before HUD brought by persons claiming to be aggrieved by a discriminatory housing practice. ( 42 U.S.C. § 3610 ; see 24 C.F.R. § 103 .) It is sufficient for our purpose in reviewing the grant of a motion for summary judgment that the mobilehome park, as indicated by its age restriction regulation, was “intended and operated for occupancy by least one person 55 year…