Court Opinion

ID: 9558539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:11:51.053408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:22.784625
License: Public Domain

TRAYNOR, J.
— I concur in the judgment. In my opinion the applicability of an act of the legislature to the state or its political subdivisions presents a question in each case of legislative intent rather than infringement of sovereignty. (State of California v. Marin Municipal Water District, 17 Cal.2d 699, 704 [111 P.2d 651].) In determining that intent, there is, as the court stated in Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159 [62 S.Ct. 972, 86 L.Ed. 1346], no hard and fast rule but there are several aids to construction. The significant facts that are aids to construction in the present ease are: under state statutes and the charter of the city of Los Angeles the city can sue and be sued in eases of this kind in ordinary actions in law or equity subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure governing such actions; no charter or other provision expressly or impliedly' precludes the determination of issues such as those here involved under the declaratory judgment procedure provided in section 1060 of that code; the numerous cases in which declaratory relief has been invoked by and against municipal corporations have established a practice that must be given great weight in the interpretation of the act.