classification and every presumption (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

classification and every presumption in California

37 California opinions name it 3 courts 1942–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (29)

CaseFollowedCited
Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.green
cal · 1942 · cited in 8 California opinions naming this issue, 1957–1983
2 sentences

1983Co. (1942) 20 Cal.2d 684, 693 [ 128 P.2d 529 ]: ‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be ovethrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it. ’ We presume the legislative classification is valid and will sustain it ‘u

1983Co. (1942) 20 Cal.2d 684, 693 [ 128 P.2d 529 ]: ‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be ovethrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it. ’ We presume the legislative classification is valid and will sustain it ‘u

58
Estate of Hormangreen
cal · 1971 · cited in 6 California opinions naming this issue, 1976–2018
2 sentences

2018City and County of San Francisco (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 424 , 434, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 498 .) "There is no constitutional requirement of uniform treatment. [Citations.] Legislative classification is permissible when made for a lawful state purpose and when the classification bears a rational relationship to that purpose. [Citations.] 'Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction *774 to warrant the classification will not be overthrow

2018City and County of San Francisco (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 424 , 434, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 498 .) "There is no constitutional requirement of uniform treatment. [Citations.] Legislative classification is permissible when made for a lawful state purpose and when the classification bears a rational relationship to that purpose. [Citations.] 'Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction *774 to warrant the classification will not be overthrow

46
State of California v. Industrial Acc. Com.green
cal · 1957 · cited in 5 California opinions naming this issue, 1962–1968
2 sentences

1968Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 389 [ 196 P.2d 773 ].) 3 To the same effect, see Rogers v. Centrone, 261 Cal.App.2d 361, 364 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 909 ] : “It must be recognized that ““Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts re

1968Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 389 [ 196 P.2d 773 ].) 3 To the same effect, see Rogers v. Centrone, 261 Cal.App.2d 361, 364 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 909 ] : “It must be recognized that ““Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts re

45
Mathews v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Boardgreen
cal · 1972 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1977
2 sentences

1976Appeals Bd., 6 Cal.3d 719, 739 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 301 , 493 P.2d 1165 ].) “‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary.’ ” (Estate of Horman, supra, 5 Cal.3d 62, 75 .) Rational justification for the here criticized legislative classification appears to us.

1976Appeals Bd., 6 Cal.3d 719, 739 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 301 , 493 P.2d 1165 ].) “‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary.’ ” (Estate of Horman, supra, 5 Cal.3d 62, 75 .) Rational justification for the here criticized legislative classification appears to us.

44
Bilyeu v. State Employees' Retirement Systemgreen
cal · 1962 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1967–1990
2 sentences

1990(Blumenthal v. Board of Medical Examiners (1962) 57 Cal.2d 228, 232-233 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 501 , 368 P.2d 101 ].) However, “[w]ide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it.”

1990(Blumenthal v. Board of Medical Examiners (1962) 57 Cal.2d 228, 232-233 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 501 , 368 P.2d 101 ].) However, “[w]ide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it.”

33
Dribin v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1951 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1957–1962
2 sentences

1962Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it." (See also: Dribin v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.2d 345, 351-352 [ 231 P.2d 809 , 24 A.L.R.2d 864 ]; City of Walnut Creek v. Si

1962Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it." (See also: Dribin v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.2d 345, 351-352 [ 231 P.2d 809 , 24 A.L.R.2d 864 ]; City of Walnut Creek v. Si

33
Saal v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Boardgreen
calctapp · 1975 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1977–1994
2 sentences

1977Appeals Bd. (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 291, 300 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 506 ].) “ ‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it- is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it.’ We presume the legislative classification is valid a

1977Appeals Bd. (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 291, 300 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 506 ].) “ ‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it- is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it.’ We presume the legislative classification is valid a

23
Jersey Maid Milk Products Co. v. Brockgreen
cal · 1939 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1957–1967
2 sentences

1964Every presumption is in favor of the validity of the legislative act. ...” See also State of California v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1957) 48 Cal.2d 365 [ 310 P.2d 7 ] and Jersey Maid Milk Products Co. v. Brock (1939) 13 Cal.2d 620 [ 91 P.2d 577 ], “Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in malting the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citat

1964Every presumption is in favor of the validity of the legislative act. ...” See also State of California v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1957) 48 Cal.2d 365 [ 310 P.2d 7 ] and Jersey Maid Milk Products Co. v. Brock (1939) 13 Cal.2d 620 [ 91 P.2d 577 ], “Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in malting the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citat

23
Blumenthal v. Board of Medical Examinersgreen
cal · 1962 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1963–1990
2 sentences

1990(Blumenthal v. Board of Medical Examiners (1962) 57 Cal.2d 228, 232-233 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 501 , 368 P.2d 101 ].) However, “[w]ide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it.”

1990(Blumenthal v. Board of Medical Examiners (1962) 57 Cal.2d 228, 232-233 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 501 , 368 P.2d 101 ].) However, “[w]ide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it.”

22
Western Indemnity Co. v. Pillsburygreen
cal · 1915 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1972–1977
2 sentences

1977Appeals Bd. (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 291, 300 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 506 ].) “ ‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it- is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it.’ We presume the legislative classification is valid a

1972Co. (1942) 20 Cal.2d 684 , *739 693 [ 128 P.2d 529 ]: "Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it." We presume the legislative classification is valid and will sustain

22
Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blindgreen
cal · 1967 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969
2 sentences

1969Petitioners contend that section 224n is unconstitutional because in denying them as foster parents the right to adopt an agency child, they are being denied the equal protection of the law and due process. “ " There is no constitutional requirement of uniform treatment but only that there be a reasonable basis for each classification. ’ . . . [A] wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute.” (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 549 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 21 ,

1969Petitioners contend that section 224n is unconstitutional because in denying them as foster parents the right to adopt an agency child, they are being denied the equal protection of the law and due process. “ " There is no constitutional requirement of uniform treatment but only that there be a reasonable basis for each classification. ’ . . . [A] wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute.” (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 549 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 21 ,

22
Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1946 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1957–1967
2 sentences

1967Every presumption is in favor of the validity of the legislative act. . . .’ (See also Jersey Maid Milk Products Co. v. Brock (1939) 13 Cal.2d 620, 636 [1] [ 91 P.2d 577 ].) In Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court (1946) 28 Cal.2d 481, 484 [ 171 P.2d 21 , 166 A.L.E. 701], involving the constitutionality of section 1101 of the Labor Code, it was once more pointed out that ‘All presumptions and intendments favor the validity of a statute and mere doubt does not afford sufficient reason for a judicial declaration of invalidity.

1967Every presumption is in favor of the validity of the legislative act. . . .’ (See also Jersey Maid Milk Products Co. v. Brock (1939) 13 Cal.2d 620, 636 [1] [ 91 P.2d 577 ].) In Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court (1946) 28 Cal.2d 481, 484 [ 171 P.2d 21 , 166 A.L.E. 701], involving the constitutionality of section 1101 of the Labor Code, it was once more pointed out that ‘All presumptions and intendments favor the validity of a statute and mere doubt does not afford sufficient reason for a judicial declaration of invalidity.

22
In Re Herreragreen
cal · 1943 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1957–1967
2 sentences

1967Co. (1942) 20 Cal.2d 684, 693 [5] [ 128 P.2d 529 ], it is declared that ‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the *871 classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it. ’ Further, In re Herrera (1943) 23 Cal.2d 206

1967Co. (1942) 20 Cal.2d 684, 693 [5] [ 128 P.2d 529 ], it is declared that ‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the *871 classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it. ’ Further, In re Herrera (1943) 23 Cal.2d 206

22
City of Walnut Creek v. Silveiragreen
cal · 1957 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1962–1963
2 sentences

1962Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it." (See also: Dribin v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.2d 345, 351-352 [ 231 P.2d 809 , 24 A.L.R.2d 864 ]; City of Walnut Creek v. Si

1962Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it." (See also: Dribin v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.2d 345, 351-352 [ 231 P.2d 809 , 24 A.L.R.2d 864 ]; City of Walnut Creek v. Si

22
County of Los Angeles v. Southern California Telephone Co.green
cal · 1948 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1952–1968
2 sentences

1968Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 389 [ 196 P.2d 773 ].) 3 To the same effect, see Rogers v. Centrone, 261 Cal.App.2d 361, 364 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 909 ] : “It must be recognized that ““Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts re

1968Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 389 [ 196 P.2d 773 ].) 3 To the same effect, see Rogers v. Centrone, 261 Cal.App.2d 361, 364 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 909 ] : “It must be recognized that ““Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts re

12
People v. Smithgreen
calctapp · 1979 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
2 sentences

1990(See People v. Smith (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 793, 800 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 749 ].) On the other hand, those receiving treatment in alcohol recovery centers have their own incentives for good behavior, including fulfillment of the terms of their probation and avoiding alternate jail time.

1990(See People v. Smith (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 793, 800 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 749 ].) On the other hand, those receiving treatment in alcohol recovery centers have their own incentives for good behavior, including fulfillment of the terms of their probation and avoiding alternate jail time.

11
Brown v. Merlogreen
cal · 1973 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980(Vance v. Bradley (1979) 440 U.S. 93, 96-97 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 175-176 , 99 S.Ct. 939 ]; McDonald v. Board of Election (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 808-809 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 739, 745 , 89 S.Ct. 1404 ]; Hale v. Morgan, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 395 ; Adams v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 55, 60-61 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 247 , 524 P.2d 375 ]; Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ].) “‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to w

1980(Vance v. Bradley (1979) 440 U.S. 93, 96-97 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 175-176 , 99 S.Ct. 939 ]; McDonald v. Board of Election (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 808-809 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 739, 745 , 89 S.Ct. 1404 ]; Hale v. Morgan, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 395 ; Adams v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 55, 60-61 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 247 , 524 P.2d 375 ]; Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ].) “‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to w

11
McDonald v. Board of Election Comm'rs of Chicagogreen
scotus · 1969 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980(Vance v. Bradley (1979) 440 U.S. 93, 96-97 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 175-176 , 99 S.Ct. 939 ]; McDonald v. Board of Election (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 808-809 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 739, 745 , 89 S.Ct. 1404 ]; Hale v. Morgan, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 395 ; Adams v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 55, 60-61 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 247 , 524 P.2d 375 ]; Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ].) “‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to w

1980(Vance v. Bradley (1979) 440 U.S. 93, 96-97 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 175-176 , 99 S.Ct. 939 ]; McDonald v. Board of Election (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 808-809 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 739, 745 , 89 S.Ct. 1404 ]; Hale v. Morgan, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 395 ; Adams v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 55, 60-61 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 247 , 524 P.2d 375 ]; Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ].) “‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to w

11
Adams v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1974 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980(Vance v. Bradley (1979) 440 U.S. 93, 96-97 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 175-176 , 99 S.Ct. 939 ]; McDonald v. Board of Election (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 808-809 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 739, 745 , 89 S.Ct. 1404 ]; Hale v. Morgan, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 395 ; Adams v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 55, 60-61 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 247 , 524 P.2d 375 ]; Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ].) “‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to w

1980(Vance v. Bradley (1979) 440 U.S. 93, 96-97 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 175-176 , 99 S.Ct. 939 ]; McDonald v. Board of Election (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 808-809 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 739, 745 , 89 S.Ct. 1404 ]; Hale v. Morgan, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 395 ; Adams v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 55, 60-61 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 247 , 524 P.2d 375 ]; Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ].) “‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to w

11
Vance v. Bradleygreen
scotus · 1979 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980(Vance v. Bradley (1979) 440 U.S. 93, 96-97 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 175-176 , 99 S.Ct. 939 ]; McDonald v. Board of Election (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 808-809 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 739, 745 , 89 S.Ct. 1404 ]; Hale v. Morgan, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 395 ; Adams v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 55, 60-61 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 247 , 524 P.2d 375 ]; Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ].) “‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to w

1980(Vance v. Bradley (1979) 440 U.S. 93, 96-97 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 175-176 , 99 S.Ct. 939 ]; McDonald v. Board of Election (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 808-809 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 739, 745 , 89 S.Ct. 1404 ]; Hale v. Morgan, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 395 ; Adams v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 55, 60-61 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 247 , 524 P.2d 375 ]; Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ].) “‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to w

11
City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commissiongreen
calctapp · 1978 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980(Vance v. Bradley (1979) 440 U.S. 93, 96-97 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 175-176 , 99 S.Ct. 939 ]; McDonald v. Board of Election (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 808-809 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 739, 745 , 89 S.Ct. 1404 ]; Hale v. Morgan, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 395 ; Adams v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 55, 60-61 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 247 , 524 P.2d 375 ]; Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ].) “‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to w

1980(Vance v. Bradley (1979) 440 U.S. 93, 96-97 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 175-176 , 99 S.Ct. 939 ]; McDonald v. Board of Election (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 808-809 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 739, 745 , 89 S.Ct. 1404 ]; Hale v. Morgan, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 395 ; Adams v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 55, 60-61 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 247 , 524 P.2d 375 ]; Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ].) “‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to w

11
D'AMICO v. Board of Medical Examinersgreen
cal · 1974 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979
2 sentences

1979Only a reasonable relationship to that purpose is required.” (Weber v. City Council (1973) 9 Cal.3d 950, 965 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 553 , 513 P.2d 601 ].) Furthermore, “the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of a classification under this standard rests squarely upon the party who assails it.” (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 17 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ].) (Italics in original.) As the California Supreme Court explained in Estate of Horman (1971) 5 Cal.3d 62, 75 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 433 , 485 P.2d 785 ]: “There is no constitutional requirement of uniform treatment...

1979Only a reasonable relationship to that purpose is required.” (Weber v. City Council (1973) 9 Cal.3d 950, 965 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 553 , 513 P.2d 601 ].) Furthermore, “the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of a classification under this standard rests squarely upon the party who assails it.” (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 17 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ].) (Italics in original.) As the California Supreme Court explained in Estate of Horman (1971) 5 Cal.3d 62, 75 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 433 , 485 P.2d 785 ]: “There is no constitutional requirement of uniform treatment...

11
Weber v. City Councilgreen
cal · 1973 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979
2 sentences

1979Only a reasonable relationship to that purpose is required.” (Weber v. City Council (1973) 9 Cal.3d 950, 965 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 553 , 513 P.2d 601 ].) Furthermore, “the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of a classification under this standard rests squarely upon the party who assails it.” (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 17 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ].) (Italics in original.) As the California Supreme Court explained in Estate of Horman (1971) 5 Cal.3d 62, 75 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 433 , 485 P.2d 785 ]: “There is no constitutional requirement of uniform treatment...

1979Only a reasonable relationship to that purpose is required.” (Weber v. City Council (1973) 9 Cal.3d 950, 965 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 553 , 513 P.2d 601 ].) Furthermore, “the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of a classification under this standard rests squarely upon the party who assails it.” (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 17 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ].) (Italics in original.) As the California Supreme Court explained in Estate of Horman (1971) 5 Cal.3d 62, 75 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 433 , 485 P.2d 785 ]: “There is no constitutional requirement of uniform treatment...

11
Alta Building Material Co. v. Camerongreen
calctapp · 1962 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974
11
F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginiagreen
scotus · 1920 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971
11
McGowan v. Marylandgreen
scotus · 1961 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971
11
Hutton v. Pasadena City Schoolsgreen
calctapp · 1968 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
11
Rogers v. Centronegreen
calctapp · 1968 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
11
Nolte v. Smithgreen
calctapp · 1961 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1962–1962
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

CaseCitedYears
Giberson v. Fink green
calctapp · 1915
2 sentences

1977Appeals Bd. (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 291, 300 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 506 ].) “ ‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it- is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it.’ We presume the legislative classification is valid a

1972Co. (1942) 20 Cal.2d 684 , *739 693 [ 128 P.2d 529 ]: "Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will not be overthrown by the courts unless it is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous. [Citations.] A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it." We presume the legislative classification is valid and will sustain

21972–1977
Rainey v. Michel green
cal · 1936
2 sentences

1956(In re Weisberg, 215 Cal. 624 [ 12 P.2d 446 ]; Rainey v. Michel, 6 Cal.2d 259 [ 57 P.2d 932 , 105 A.L.R 148]; Gillum v. Johnson, 7 Cal.2d 744 [ 62 P.2d 1037 , 63 P.2d 810 , 108 A.L.R. 595 ]; Natural Milk etc. Assn. v. City etc. of S. F., ante, p. 101 [ 124 P.2d 25 ].) A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it.” In the instant case it cannot be held that the classification “is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous.” The statute permits only utility districts which have operated an electric distribution sy

1956(In re Weisberg, 215 Cal. 624 [ 12 P.2d 446 ]; Rainey v. Michel, 6 Cal.2d 259 [ 57 P.2d 932 , 105 A.L.R 148]; Gillum v. Johnson, 7 Cal.2d 744 [ 62 P.2d 1037 , 63 P.2d 810 , 108 A.L.R. 595 ]; Natural Milk etc. Assn. v. City etc. of S. F., ante, p. 101 [ 124 P.2d 25 ].) A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it.” In the instant case it cannot be held that the classification “is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous.” The statute permits only utility districts which have operated an electric distribution sy

21942–1956
In Re Weisberg green
cal · 1932
2 sentences

1956(In re Weisberg, 215 Cal. 624 [ 12 P.2d 446 ]; Rainey v. Michel, 6 Cal.2d 259 [ 57 P.2d 932 , 105 A.L.R 148]; Gillum v. Johnson, 7 Cal.2d 744 [ 62 P.2d 1037 , 63 P.2d 810 , 108 A.L.R. 595 ]; Natural Milk etc. Assn. v. City etc. of S. F., ante, p. 101 [ 124 P.2d 25 ].) A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it.” In the instant case it cannot be held that the classification “is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous.” The statute permits only utility districts which have operated an electric distribution sy

1956(In re Weisberg, 215 Cal. 624 [ 12 P.2d 446 ]; Rainey v. Michel, 6 Cal.2d 259 [ 57 P.2d 932 , 105 A.L.R 148]; Gillum v. Johnson, 7 Cal.2d 744 [ 62 P.2d 1037 , 63 P.2d 810 , 108 A.L.R. 595 ]; Natural Milk etc. Assn. v. City etc. of S. F., ante, p. 101 [ 124 P.2d 25 ].) A distinction in legislation is not arbitrary if any set of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it.” In the instant case it cannot be held that the classification “is palpably arbitrary and beyond rational doubt erroneous.” The statute permits only utility districts which have operated an electric distribution sy

21942–1956
Walgreen Co. v. City and County of San Francisco green
calctapp · 2010
2 sentences

2018City and County of San Francisco (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 424 , 434, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 498 .) "There is no constitutional requirement of uniform treatment. [Citations.] Legislative classification is permissible when made for a lawful state purpose and when the classification bears a rational relationship to that purpose. [Citations.] 'Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction *774 to warrant the classification will not be overthrow

2018City and County of San Francisco (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 424 , 434, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 498 .) "There is no constitutional requirement of uniform treatment. [Citations.] Legislative classification is permissible when made for a lawful state purpose and when the classification bears a rational relationship to that purpose. [Citations.] 'Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction *774 to warrant the classification will not be overthrow

12018–2018
Neil S. v. Mary L. green
calctapp · 2011
2 sentences

2018City and County of San Francisco (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 424 , 434, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 498 .) "There is no constitutional requirement of uniform treatment. [Citations.] Legislative classification is permissible when made for a lawful state purpose and when the classification bears a rational relationship to that purpose. [Citations.] 'Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction *774 to warrant the classification will not be overthrow

2018City and County of San Francisco (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 424 , 434, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 498 .) "There is no constitutional requirement of uniform treatment. [Citations.] Legislative classification is permissible when made for a lawful state purpose and when the classification bears a rational relationship to that purpose. [Citations.] 'Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to what is a sufficient distinction *774 to warrant the classification will not be overthrow

12018–2018
Hale v. Morgan green
cal · 1978
1 sentence

1980(Vance v. Bradley (1979) 440 U.S. 93, 96-97 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 175-176 , 99 S.Ct. 939 ]; McDonald v. Board of Election (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 808-809 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 739, 745 , 89 S.Ct. 1404 ]; Hale v. Morgan, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 395 ; Adams v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 55, 60-61 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 247 , 524 P.2d 375 ]; Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ].) “‘Wide discretion is vested in the Legislature in making the classification and every presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute; the decision of the Legislature as to w

11980–1980
Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory green
scotus · 1977
2 sentences

1979Only a reasonable relationship to that purpose is required.” (Weber v. City Council (1973) 9 Cal.3d 950, 965 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 553 , 513 P.2d 601 ].) Furthermore, “the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of a classification under this standard rests squarely upon the party who assails it.” (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 17 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ].) (Italics in original.) As the California Supreme Court explained in Estate of Horman (1971) 5 Cal.3d 62, 75 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 433 , 485 P.2d 785 ]: “There is no constitutional requirement of uniform treatment...

1979Only a reasonable relationship to that purpose is required.” (Weber v. City Council (1973) 9 Cal.3d 950, 965 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 553 , 513 P.2d 601 ].) Furthermore, “the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of a classification under this standard rests squarely upon the party who assails it.” (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 17 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ].) (Italics in original.) As the California Supreme Court explained in Estate of Horman (1971) 5 Cal.3d 62, 75 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 433 , 485 P.2d 785 ]: “There is no constitutional requirement of uniform treatment...

11979–1979
In Re Ricky H. green
cal · 1970
11978–1978
Arp v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board green
cal · 1977
11978–1978
People v. Darby green
calctapp · 1952
11974–1974
People v. Elliott green
calctapp · 1953
11974–1974
Whittaker v. Superior Court green
cal · 1968
11971–1971
Shafer v. Los Serranos Co. neutral
calctapp · 1932
11962–1962
Natural Milk Producers Ass'n v. City & County of San Francisco green
cal · 1942
11956–1956
Gillum v. Johnson green
cal · 1936
11956–1956

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check