Court Opinion

ID: 9847271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:57:02.379217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:05.420692
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
concur generally in the majority I opinion, but I dissent from its order of retransfer to the Court of Appeal.
While it might have been preferable to have all the issues ventilated in the prior proceedings in the Court of Appeal, the entire matter is before us now. In the interest of judicial economy, and to spare the litigants unnecessary time and expense, we should render a definitive judgment and thus finally terminate this case.
The ordinance was adopted in 1981 and this lawsuit was filed in the same year. After four years the parties are entitled to a final judgment rather than
*305a mere temporizing order that will require additional proceedings in the Court of Appeal and perhaps another petition for review in this court.
Appellants’ petition for a rehearing was denied November 27, 1985. Grodin, J., did not participate therein.