legislature made inquiry in California

1972(Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 356 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 811, 814 , 83 S.Ct. 814 ]; In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 255 , 473 P.2d 999 ]; Gray v. Whitmore, supra.) “ ‘The question of classification is generally one for the legislative power, to be determined by it in the light of its knowledge of all the circumstances and requirements, and its discretion, will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. [Citation.] It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon

1972(Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 356 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 811, 814 , 83 S.Ct. 814 ]; In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 255 , 473 P.2d 999 ]; Gray v. Whitmore, supra.) “ ‘The question of classification is generally one for the legislative power, to be determined by it in the light of its knowledge of all the circumstances and requirements, and its discretion, will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. [Citation.] It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon

2021(In re Jerald C. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 1, 5, fn. 3, 6-10 (lead opn. of Broussard, J.); id. at pp. 11-12 & fn. 1 (opn. of Kaus, J.); see also County of San Mateo v. Dell J. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1236, 1252, 1254 .) Accordingly, a family cannot be charged costs relating to the rehabilitation and treatment of a section 602 ward.

2021(In re Jerald C. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 1, 5, fn. 3, 6-10 (lead opn. of Broussard, J.); id. at pp. 11-12 & fn. 1 (opn. of Kaus, J.); see also County of San Mateo v. Dell J. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1236, 1252, 1254 .) Accordingly, a family cannot be charged costs relating to the rehabilitation and treatment of a section 602 ward.

2021(In re Jerald C. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 1, 5, fn. 3, 6-10 (lead opn. of Broussard, J.); id. at pp. 11-12 & fn. 1 (opn. of Kaus, J.); see also County of San Mateo v. Dell J. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1236, 1252, 1254 .) Accordingly, a family cannot be charged costs relating to the rehabilitation and treatment of a section 602 ward.

1989Thus, a wilful violation of this rule is, by definition, deserving of strong disciplinary measures.” (Ibid.) Violation of the rule may, among other things, warrant denial of reinstatement or readmission, (rule 955(e).) Compliance with the rule as ordered by this court is required “even though there were no clients or counsel to notify pursuant to subdivision (a). . . .” (Powers v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 337, 341 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 386 , 748 P.2d 324 ].) Recently, the Legislature made a violation of rule 955 a criminal offense.

1989Thus, a wilful violation of this rule is, by definition, deserving of strong disciplinary measures.” (Ibid.) Violation of the rule may, among other things, warrant denial of reinstatement or readmission, (rule 955(e).) Compliance with the rule as ordered by this court is required “even though there were no clients or counsel to notify pursuant to subdivision (a). . . .” (Powers v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 337, 341 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 386 , 748 P.2d 324 ].) Recently, the Legislature made a violation of rule 955 a criminal offense.

1972(Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 356 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 811, 814 , 83 S.Ct. 814 ]; In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 255 , 473 P.2d 999 ]; Gray v. Whitmore, supra.) “ ‘The question of classification is generally one for the legislative power, to be determined by it in the light of its knowledge of all the circumstances and requirements, and its discretion, will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. [Citation.] It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon

1972(Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 356 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 811, 814 , 83 S.Ct. 814 ]; In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 255 , 473 P.2d 999 ]; Gray v. Whitmore, supra.) “ ‘The question of classification is generally one for the legislative power, to be determined by it in the light of its knowledge of all the circumstances and requirements, and its discretion, will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. [Citation.] It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon

1972(Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 356 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 811, 814 , 83 S.Ct. 814 ]; In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 255 , 473 P.2d 999 ]; Gray v. Whitmore, supra.) “ ‘The question of classification is generally one for the legislative power, to be determined by it in the light of its knowledge of all the circumstances and requirements, and its discretion, will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. [Citation.] It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon

1972(Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 356 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 811, 814 , 83 S.Ct. 814 ]; In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 255 , 473 P.2d 999 ]; Gray v. Whitmore, supra.) “ ‘The question of classification is generally one for the legislative power, to be determined by it in the light of its knowledge of all the circumstances and requirements, and its discretion, will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. [Citation.] It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon

1972(Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 356 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 811, 814 , 83 S.Ct. 814 ]; In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 255 , 473 P.2d 999 ]; Gray v. Whitmore, supra.) “ ‘The question of classification is generally one for the legislative power, to be determined by it in the light of its knowledge of all the circumstances and requirements, and its discretion, will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. [Citation.] It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon

1972(Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 356 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 811, 814 , 83 S.Ct. 814 ]; In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 255 , 473 P.2d 999 ]; Gray v. Whitmore, supra.) “ ‘The question of classification is generally one for the legislative power, to be determined by it in the light of its knowledge of all the circumstances and requirements, and its discretion, will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. [Citation.] It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon

1972(Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 356 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 811, 814 , 83 S.Ct. 814 ]; In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 255 , 473 P.2d 999 ]; Gray v. Whitmore, supra.) “ ‘The question of classification is generally one for the legislative power, to be determined by it in the light of its knowledge of all the circumstances and requirements, and its discretion, will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. [Citation.] It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon

1972(Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 356 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 811, 814 , 83 S.Ct. 814 ]; In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 255 , 473 P.2d 999 ]; Gray v. Whitmore, supra.) “ ‘The question of classification is generally one for the legislative power, to be determined by it in the light of its knowledge of all the circumstances and requirements, and its discretion, will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. [Citation.] It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon

1972(Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 356 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 811, 814 , 83 S.Ct. 814 ]; In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 255 , 473 P.2d 999 ]; Gray v. Whitmore, supra.) “ ‘The question of classification is generally one for the legislative power, to be determined by it in the light of its knowledge of all the circumstances and requirements, and its discretion, will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. [Citation.] It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon

1972(Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 356 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 811, 814 , 83 S.Ct. 814 ]; In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 255 , 473 P.2d 999 ]; Gray v. Whitmore, supra.) “ ‘The question of classification is generally one for the legislative power, to be determined by it in the light of its knowledge of all the circumstances and requirements, and its discretion, will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. [Citation.] It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon

1959(Food & Grocery Bureau v. Garfield, 18 Cal.2d 174, 177 [ 114 P.2d 579 ]); they also contend that the Legislature made an exception to the final judgment rule by the adoption of subdivision 2 of section 963, which provides that an order granting an injunction is appealable.

1959(Food & Grocery Bureau v. Garfield, 18 Cal.2d 174, 177 [ 114 P.2d 579 ]); they also contend that the Legislature made an exception to the final judgment rule by the adoption of subdivision 2 of section 963, which provides that an order granting an injunction is appealable.

1951"When a legislative classification is questioned, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, there is a presumption of existence of that state of facts, and the burden of showing arbitrary action rests upon the one who assails the classification" ' (California Physicians' Service v. Garrison, 28 Cal.2d 790, 802 [ 172 P.2d 4 , 167 A.L.R. 306 ].)" (See to same effect In re McKelvey, 19 Cal.App.2d 94 [ 64 P.2d 1002 ]; Matter of Yun Quong, 159 Cal. 508, 515 [ 114 P. 835 , Ann.Cas. 1912C 969].) [5] In the light of these and many other authorities that might be cited (s

1951"When a legislative classification is questioned, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, there is a presumption of existence of that state of facts, and the burden of showing arbitrary action rests upon the one who assails the classification" ' (California Physicians' Service v. Garrison, 28 Cal.2d 790, 802 [ 172 P.2d 4 , 167 A.L.R. 306 ].)" (See to same effect In re McKelvey, 19 Cal.App.2d 94 [ 64 P.2d 1002 ]; Matter of Yun Quong, 159 Cal. 508, 515 [ 114 P. 835 , Ann.Cas. 1912C 969].) [5] In the light of these and many other authorities that might be cited (s

1951"When a legislative classification is questioned, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, there is a presumption of existence of that state of facts, and the burden of showing arbitrary action rests upon the one who assails the classification" ' (California Physicians' Service v. Garrison, 28 Cal.2d 790, 802 [ 172 P.2d 4 , 167 A.L.R. 306 ].)" (See to same effect In re McKelvey, 19 Cal.App.2d 94 [ 64 P.2d 1002 ]; Matter of Yun Quong, 159 Cal. 508, 515 [ 114 P. 835 , Ann.Cas. 1912C 969].) [5] In the light of these and many other authorities that might be cited (s

1951"When a legislative classification is questioned, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, there is a presumption of existence of that state of facts, and the burden of showing arbitrary action rests upon the one who assails the classification" ' (California Physicians' Service v. Garrison, 28 Cal.2d 790, 802 [ 172 P.2d 4 , 167 A.L.R. 306 ].)" (See to same effect In re McKelvey, 19 Cal.App.2d 94 [ 64 P.2d 1002 ]; Matter of Yun Quong, 159 Cal. 508, 515 [ 114 P. 835 , Ann.Cas. 1912C 969].) [5] In the light of these and many other authorities that might be cited (s

1951"When a legislative classification is questioned, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, there is a presumption of existence of that state of facts, and the burden of showing arbitrary action rests upon the one who assails the classification" ' (California Physicians' Service v. Garrison, 28 Cal.2d 790, 802 [ 172 P.2d 4 , 167 A.L.R. 306 ].)" (See to same effect In re McKelvey, 19 Cal.App.2d 94 [ 64 P.2d 1002 ]; Matter of Yun Quong, 159 Cal. 508, 515 [ 114 P. 835 , Ann.Cas. 1912C 969].) [5] In the light of these and many other authorities that might be cited (s

1951"When a legislative classification is questioned, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, there is a presumption of existence of that state of facts, and the burden of showing arbitrary action rests upon the one who assails the classification" ' (California Physicians' Service v. Garrison, 28 Cal.2d 790, 802 [ 172 P.2d 4 , 167 A.L.R. 306 ].)" (See to same effect In re McKelvey, 19 Cal.App.2d 94 [ 64 P.2d 1002 ]; Matter of Yun Quong, 159 Cal. 508, 515 [ 114 P. 835 , Ann.Cas. 1912C 969].) [5] In the light of these and many other authorities that might be cited (s

1946Dist., 193 Cal. 609 [ 227 P. 181 ].) It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon the result of the inquiry. ’ ’ And in People v. Western Fruit Growers, 22 Cal.2d 494, 507 [ 140 P.2d 13 ], it was said: “When a legislative classification is questioned, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, there is a presumption of existence of that state of facts, and the burden of showing arbitrary action rests upon the one who assails the classification.” (Se

1946Dist., 193 Cal. 609 [ 227 P. 181 ].) It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon the result of the inquiry. ’ ’ And in People v. Western Fruit Growers, 22 Cal.2d 494, 507 [ 140 P.2d 13 ], it was said: “When a legislative classification is questioned, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, there is a presumption of existence of that state of facts, and the burden of showing arbitrary action rests upon the one who assails the classification.” (Se

1946Dist., 193 Cal. 609 [ 227 P. 181 ].) It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon the result of the inquiry. ’ ’ And in People v. Western Fruit Growers, 22 Cal.2d 494, 507 [ 140 P.2d 13 ], it was said: “When a legislative classification is questioned, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, there is a presumption of existence of that state of facts, and the burden of showing arbitrary action rests upon the one who assails the classification.” (Se

1946Dist., 193 Cal. 609 [ 227 P. 181 ].) It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon the result of the inquiry. ’ ’ And in People v. Western Fruit Growers, 22 Cal.2d 494, 507 [ 140 P.2d 13 ], it was said: “When a legislative classification is questioned, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, there is a presumption of existence of that state of facts, and the burden of showing arbitrary action rests upon the one who assails the classification.” (Se

1946Dist., 193 Cal. 609 [ 227 P. 181 ].) It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon the result of the inquiry. ’ ’ And in People v. Western Fruit Growers, 22 Cal.2d 494, 507 [ 140 P.2d 13 ], it was said: “When a legislative classification is questioned, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, there is a presumption of existence of that state of facts, and the burden of showing arbitrary action rests upon the one who assails the classification.” (Se

1946Dist., 193 Cal. 609 [ 227 P. 181 ].) It will be presumed that the legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon the result of the inquiry. ’ ’ And in People v. Western Fruit Growers, 22 Cal.2d 494, 507 [ 140 P.2d 13 ], it was said: “When a legislative classification is questioned, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, there is a presumption of existence of that state of facts, and the burden of showing arbitrary action rests upon the one who assails the classification.” (Se

1945Co. v. Moore, 37 Cal.App.2d 91 [ 98 P.2d 819 ].)” And in Livingston v. Robinson, 10 Cal.2d 730, 740 [ 76 P.2d 1192 ], it is stated that the question of classification is generally one for the legislative power, to be determined by it in the light of its knowledge of all the circumstances and requirements ; that its discretion will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary, but it will be presumed that the Legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon the result of the inquiry.

1945Co. v. Moore, 37 Cal.App.2d 91 [ 98 P.2d 819 ].)” And in Livingston v. Robinson, 10 Cal.2d 730, 740 [ 76 P.2d 1192 ], it is stated that the question of classification is generally one for the legislative power, to be determined by it in the light of its knowledge of all the circumstances and requirements ; that its discretion will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary, but it will be presumed that the Legislature made inquiry to determine whether or not there were evils to be remedied and that the classification made was based upon the result of the inquiry.