injunction against violation in California

2017We recently held in such a case that where the conduct sought to be enjoined was not within the traditional equitable jurisdiction, it must be brought clearly within the statutory definition of the term 'nuisance' and could not be predicated on the vague definitions of that term found in the early criminal law. ( People v. Lim , supra , [18 Cal.2d at] p. 880 [ 118 P.2d 472 ].) Civil Code, section 3369, contains no broader a definition of the term 'unfair competition' than existed at common law and in itself furnishes no basis for an injunction against the violation of the penal ordinance invol

1999(See, e.g., Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1267 , 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538 , 833 P.2d 545 [under the unfair competition law, "one need only `show that `members of the public are likely to be deceived'"]; Schwartz v. Slenderella Systems of Calif. (1954) 43 Cal.2d 107 , 271 P.2d 857 ; Don Alvarado Co. v. Porganan (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 377 , 21 Cal.Rptr. 495 ; People ex rel.

1999(See, e.g., Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1267 , 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538 , 833 P.2d 545 [under the unfair competition law, "one need only `show that `members of the public are likely to be deceived'"]; Schwartz v. Slenderella Systems of Calif. (1954) 43 Cal.2d 107 , 271 P.2d 857 ; Don Alvarado Co. v. Porganan (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 377 , 21 Cal.Rptr. 495 ; People ex rel.

1999(See, e.g., Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1267 , 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538 , 833 P.2d 545 [under the unfair competition law, "one need only `show that `members of the public are likely to be deceived'"]; Schwartz v. Slenderella Systems of Calif. (1954) 43 Cal.2d 107 , 271 P.2d 857 ; Don Alvarado Co. v. Porganan (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 377 , 21 Cal.Rptr. 495 ; People ex rel.

1999(See, e.g., Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1267 , 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538 , 833 P.2d 545 [under the unfair competition law, "one need only `show that `members of the public are likely to be deceived'"]; Schwartz v. Slenderella Systems of Calif. (1954) 43 Cal.2d 107 , 271 P.2d 857 ; Don Alvarado Co. v. Porganan (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 377 , 21 Cal.Rptr. 495 ; People ex rel.

1999Civil Code, section 3369, contains no broader a definition of the term `unfair competition' than existed at common law and in itself furnishes no basis for an injunction against the violation of the penal ordinance [regulating competition] involved in this case." ( Landowitz, supra, 20 Cal.2d 418, 422 , 126 P.2d 609 , italics added.) Subsequent decisions have continued to view the unfair competition law's prohibition of any unfair business practice as a prohibition against deceptive conduct.

1999Civil Code, section 3369, contains no broader a definition of the term `unfair competition' than existed at common law and in itself furnishes no basis for an injunction against the violation of the penal ordinance [regulating competition] involved in this case." ( Landowitz, supra, 20 Cal.2d 418, 422 , 126 P.2d 609 , italics added.) Subsequent decisions have continued to view the unfair competition law's prohibition of any unfair business practice as a prohibition against deceptive conduct.

1990(See City of Sacramento v. California State Legislature (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 393 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 686 ].) Additionally, and I believe more importantly, I would affirm the issuance of the preliminary injunction against a requirement that County fund any increases in the AFDC program required after November 6, 1979, as a violation of the provisions of article XIII B, section 6.

1990(See City of Sacramento v. California State Legislature (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 393 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 686 ].) Additionally, and I believe more importantly, I would affirm the issuance of the preliminary injunction against a requirement that County fund any increases in the AFDC program required after November 6, 1979, as a violation of the provisions of article XIII B, section 6.

1962In that litigation appellants relied upon Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, supra, 17 Cal.2d 280 for the contention that the court lacked jurisdiction to give the relief which it had granted .Appellants also cited Hunter v. Superior Court (1939) 36 Cal.App.2d 100 [ 97 P.2d 492 ], Justice Schauer in Signal Oil points out that in Vasquez v. Vasquez (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 280, 283-284 [ 240 P.2d 319 ], the court cited Hunter “for the proposition that ‘A judgment based on an illegal contract because it was in restraint of trade is void where the illegality appeared on the face of the judgment

1962In that litigation appellants relied upon Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, supra, 17 Cal.2d 280 for the contention that the court lacked jurisdiction to give the relief which it had granted .Appellants also cited Hunter v. Superior Court (1939) 36 Cal.App.2d 100 [ 97 P.2d 492 ], Justice Schauer in Signal Oil points out that in Vasquez v. Vasquez (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 280, 283-284 [ 240 P.2d 319 ], the court cited Hunter “for the proposition that ‘A judgment based on an illegal contract because it was in restraint of trade is void where the illegality appeared on the face of the judgment

1962In that litigation appellants relied upon Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, supra, 17 Cal.2d 280 for the contention that the court lacked jurisdiction to give the relief which it had granted .Appellants also cited Hunter v. Superior Court (1939) 36 Cal.App.2d 100 [ 97 P.2d 492 ], Justice Schauer in Signal Oil points out that in Vasquez v. Vasquez (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 280, 283-284 [ 240 P.2d 319 ], the court cited Hunter “for the proposition that ‘A judgment based on an illegal contract because it was in restraint of trade is void where the illegality appeared on the face of the judgment

1962Thus Signal Oil etc. Co. v. Ashland Oil etc. Co. (1958) 49 Cal.2d 764 [ 322 P.2d 1 ], involved a preliminary injunction against the violation of an agreement which the court eventually found invalid.

1962Thus Signal Oil etc. Co. v. Ashland Oil etc. Co. (1958) 49 Cal.2d 764 [ 322 P.2d 1 ], involved a preliminary injunction against the violation of an agreement which the court eventually found invalid.

1957Indeed, the enforcement of the Fourth Amendment by contempt proceedings against overzealous officers was advocated as an alternative to the exclusionary rule by one of its ablest and severest critics (see 8 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.] 2184, p. 40), and the dissenting opinion in the Cahan case stressed the arguments for a direct rather than indirect *895 method of enforcing the constitutional guarantees that would not deprive " 'society of its remedy against one lawbreaker because he has been pursued by another.' " ( 44 Cal.2d 434, 458 .) Defendant nevertheless contends that the scope of the c

1957Indeed, the enforcement of the Fourth Amendment by contempt proceedings against overzealous officers was advocated as an alternative to the exclusionary rule by one of its ablest and severest critics (see 8 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.] § 2184, p. 40), and the dissenting opinion in the Cahan case stressed the arguments for a direct rather than indirect method of enforcing the constitutional guarantees that would not deprive “ ‘society of its remedy against one lawbreaker because he has been pursued by another.’ ” ( 44 Cal.2d 434, 458 .) Defendant nevertheless contends that the scope of the cons