Court Opinion

ID: 9723750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:29:53.795967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:51.524150
License: Public Domain

RACANELLI, P. J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree with the result reached in light of the controlling holding in State of California v. Superior Court (Lyon) (1981) 29 Cal.3d 210 [172 Cal.Rptr. 696, 625 P.2d 239], under the doctrine of stare decisis. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) But I cannot endorse the lengthy dicta, sought to be justified in the guise of publishable criticism of an existing [Supreme Court] rule, which merely amounts in substance to no more than a reargument of the minority opinion. (See State of California v. Superior Court (Lyon), supra, 29 Cal.3d at pp. 233-239 (conc. and dis. opn. of Clark, J.).)
I believe that whatever heuristic value lies in the contrary position can be adequately resurrected by a footnote reference to the Lyon dissent appended to the dispositive portion (three to four pages at most) of the lead opinion.
A petition for a rehearing was denied April 17, 1986. Racanelli, P. J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. Appellants’ petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied June 25, 1986.