X

Legal Memorandum: Constitutional Validity of Section 700.160

Issue: Does section 700.160 of the California Code of Civil Procedure violate constitutional due process guarantees?

Area of Law: Constitutional Law
Keywords: Section 700.160 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; Constitutional validity
Jurisdiction: California
Cited Cases: 999 P.2d 718; 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 485; 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 847; 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 745; 21 Cal. 4th 903; 824 P.2d 694; 42 Cal. 3d 951; 1 Cal. 4th 1211; 60 Cal. App. 4th 1205; 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 111; 986 P.2d 182; 728 P.2d 211; 61 Cal. App. 4th 1013
Cited Statutes: § 700.160 of the California Code of Civil Procedure
Date: 04/01/2001

To prevail on a constitutional claim that § 700.160 of the California Code of Civil Procedure violates both substantive and procedural due process.  Appellant “must carry a heavy burden.”  People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal. 4th 903, 912, 986 P.2d 182, 187, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 847, 853 (1999).  According to the Supreme Court of California:

The courts will presume a statute is constitutional unless its unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears; all presumptions and intendments favor its validity.

Id. at 912-13, 986 P.2d at 187, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 853, (citing People v. Hansel, 1 Cal. 4th 1211, 1219, 824 P.2d 694, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 888 (1992); Mills v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 3d 951, 957, 728 P.2d 211, 232 Cal. Rptr. 141 (1986)). 

According to the Supreme Court of California, the basis for this presumption is the belief that the “Legislature understands the constitutional limits on its power and intends that legislation respect those limits.”  Kraus v. Trinity Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 23 Cal. 4th 116, 118, 999 P.2d 718, 727, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 485, 494 (2000); see also Schabarum v. California Legislature, 60 Cal. App. 4th 1205, 1217-21, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 745, 752-54 (1998) (presumption […]

Subscribe to Litigation Pathfinder

To get the full-text of this Legal Memorandum ... and more!

(Month-to-month and annual subscriptions available)