Appellant cemetery sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) that upheld the enforcement of an ordinance of respondent, city and county, that prohibited cemeteries within the city and county borders.
The cemetery filed suit against the city and county to stop the enforcement of an ordinance that prohibited the internment of dead bodies within the city and county and to obtain a decree declaring the ordinance void. The lower court entered judgment in favor of the city and county and the court affirmed. The court affirmed because it found the cemetery failed to show why the ordinance was not a valid exercise of the legislative power of the city and county. The Sample demand letter breach of contract found there was no sudden change because the ordinance gave 18 months for those affected to prepare for the change. There has also been a change because when the cemetery was originally approved it was a mile from any habitation but was now located in a densely populated area.
The court affirmed the decision of the lower court that upheld the enforcement of an ordinance of the city and county, that prohibited cemeteries within the city and county borders.
Plaintiff creditor appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted defendant debtor’s motion for a judgment of nonsuit and dismissed his action to recover on a promissory note.
The creditor was a sound engineer but was not licensed as a private investigator. He recorded proceedings of meetings, speeches, and personal conversations. The debtor contacted the creditor to rent recording equipment to place in her husband’s office. The creditor took the lessee to the office, she showed him where to install the microphones, and the creditor installed it. He fixed a microphone and transmitting device to the debtor’s person, and, at her direction, placed microphones in her home. After the bill was presented, the debtor executed a promissory note. The motion for nonsuit was made on the sole ground that the creditor’s services were those of a private investigator and that he had no license. The court reversed the judgment granted to the debtor. The creditor had recorded conversations for law enforcement, and it could have been inferred that it was done to gather evidence for use before a court under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7521. However the presumption under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1963(1), (19), (33) was that the creditor acted lawfully. The creditor did not conduct investigation but merely furnished the devices to the debtor. She carried out her own investigation.
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court.
