People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court
Cal.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2018People ex rel. Becerra v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty. Cal. App. Ct.
- 2007County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates Cal. Ct. App.
- 2006Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of San Diego Cal. Ct. App.
- 2005Cordova v. 21st Century Insurance Cal. Ct. App.
- 1997California Ass'n of Health Facilities v. Department of Health Services Cal.
- 1997Denny's, Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills Cal. Ct. App.
- 1995Salazar v. Eastin Cal.
- 1995Memorial Hospitals Ass'n v. Randol Cal. Ct. App.
- 1995Liebler v. Point Loma Tennis Club Cal. Ct. App.
- 1993Municipal Court v. Superior Court Cal.
Cites 4 cases
- Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp.
- Cline v. Credit Bureau
- McCallop v. Carberry
- Hill v. Hill
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
THE PEOPLE ex rel. THOMAS C. LYNCH, as Attorney General, etc., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Respondents.
The Attorney General, on behalf of the People of the State of California, seeks by petition for writ of mandate to secure a determination from this court that the provisions of section 537 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which specify the actions in which prejudgment attachment may issue, are void in their entirety. Cited in support of the petition is Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. (1969) 395 U.S. 337 [23 L.Ed.2d 349, 89 S.Ct. 1820]. We issued an order to show cause.
As ruled in the companion cases of McCallop v. Carberry, ante, p. 903 [83 Cal.Rptr. 666, 464 P.2d 122] and Cline v. Credit Bureau, ante, p. 908 [83 Cal.Rptr. 669, 464 P.2d 125], California’s prejudgment wage garnishment procedures violate procedural due process requirements, under the rationale of Sniadach. Those cases deal with actual or threatened prejudgment levies upon the wages of the parties litigant, upon alleged claims of indebtedness.
In the present proceeding, however, there is before us no alleged debtor or creditor who is party to a prejudgment attachment of any property whatsoever, wages or otherwise, and who seeks relief with respect thereto. The Attorney General avers that “The various clerks, sheriffs, and marshals of the State of California [who issue and serve writs of attachment] . . . wish to be advised as to what the law is in the State of California” with reference to application of the Sniadach ruling to California’s prejudgment attachment procedures. The Attorney General requests us to provide such advice.
The rendering of advisory opinions falls within neither the functions nor the jurisdiction of this court. (See Cal. Const., art. III, § 1; art. VI, §§ 10, 11; see also Gov. Code, § 68808; Hill v. Hill (1947) 79 Cal.App. 2d 368 [180 P.2d 378].)
The order to show cause is discharged as improvidently issued, and the petition is denied.
Traynor, C. J., McComb, J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., Mosk, J., and Sullivan, J., concurred.
We, of course, do not question the authority of the Attorney General to file any civil action for the enforcement of the laws of the state or the United States Constitution, which in the absence of legislative restriction he deems necessary for the protection of public rights and interests. (Cal. Const., art. V, § 13; People ex rel. Mosk v. Lynam (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 959 [61 Cal.Rptr. 800]; People v. Arthur Murray, Inc. (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 333 [47 Cal.Rptr. 700]; Don Wilson Builders v. Superior Court (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 77 [33 Cal.Rptr. 621]; People v. New Penn Mines, Inc. (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 667, 671 [28 Cal.Rptr. 337]; People ex rel. Mosk v. National Research Co. of Cal. (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 765 [20 Cal.Rptr. 516]; 6 Cal.Jur.2d, Attorney General, § 12, p. 16.)