Dickenson v. Municipal Court

California Court of Appeal Jul 11, 1958 No. Civ. 5834Published

Before: Mussell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a writ of prohibition because the appellants had an adequate remedy through trial and subsequent appeal. Consequently, the court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the municipal ordinances.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a writ of prohibition to restrain municipal court proceedings.
Whether the appellants had an adequate remedy at law through trial and appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The writ is not one of right but one of sound judicial discretion, to be granted or refused according to the facts and circumstances of the particular case.”

“The facts alleged are sufficient to justify the trial court in denying the writ on the ground that appellants have adequate remedy by trial in the municipal court and by appeal therefrom to the superior court.”

MUSSELL, Acting P. J.

On January 26, 1956, complaints were filed in the Municipal Court of the San Diego Judicial District, County of San Diego, charging the appellants with the commission of seven misdemeanors in violation of various sections of the City of San Diego Municipal Code. The sections involved deal with the regulation and licensing of auto wrecking establishments in the city of San Diego and are substantially as follows:

Section 33.0903. Regulations—General. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of an automobile wrecker, unless such business is carried on, maintained or conducted in compliance with the following regulations:

Section 31.0121. Permit Requirements. No person shall engage in any business required to be licensed under the provisions of this Code until such license is first obtained.

[87]

Section 33.0903.1. Regulations—Enclosed Premises. That such business shall be carried on, maintained or conducted entirely inside an enclosed building or buildings, unless the premises on which such business is carried on, maintained or conducted shall be entirely enclosed by a solid fence or wall at least six (6) feet in height and constructed according to the requirements of the building code of said City.

Section 33.0903.2. Regulations — Maintenance of Fences. That such fence or wall shall be maintained in a neat, substantial, safe condition and shall be painted.

Section 33.0903.3 provides that a sign as therein described must be displayed on the property and regulates signs on the outward fence thereof.

Section 33.0903.4. Regulations—Gates. Gates for access to the premises shall swing inwardly, and such gates shall be kept closed when the premises are not open for business.

Section 33.0903.5. Regulations—Height of Piles. That no automobile salvaged parts, metals, tires and/or accessories shall be piled, or permitted to be piled, in excess of the height of the enclosing fence or wall or nearer than two (2) feet thereto.

Section 33.0903.6. Regulations—Inflammable Liquids. That all gas, oil or other inflammable liquid shall be drained and removed from any unregistered motor vehicle located thereon.

Dickenson v. Municipal Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief