Court Opinion

ID: 9794279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:02:50.149511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:35.769027
License: Public Domain

SEAWELL, J., Dissenting.
I dissent.
I am of the opinion that the rule enunciated in Ex parte Haskell, 112 Cal. 412 [44 Pac. 725, 32 L. R. A. 527], E. A. Hoffman Candy Co. v. City of Newport Beach, 120 Cal. App. 525 [8 Pac. (2d) 235, California F. S. Co. v. Santa Monica, 206 Cal. 714 [275 Pac. 948], and Richmond Linen Co. v. Lynchburg, 160 Va. 644 [169 S. E. 554], is controlling. Those cases, in my opinion, clearly establish that the ordinance of *416Santa Barbara under consideration herein does not unlawfully discriminate between classes, and is a reasonable exercise of municipal power. Once it is conceded, as docs the majority opinion, that the power exists to classify between inside and outside businesses, then the sole question is whether the particular ordinance is reasonable. The mere fact that inside business is not taxed at all under the present ordinance is immaterial. The question is simply one of degree.
Langdon, J., concurred.