People v. Robbin

California Court of Appeal Jul 24, 1942 No. Civ. No. 2799; Civ. No. 2800; Civ. Nos. 2796, 2798; Civ. No. 2797; Civ. Nos. 2801, 2802Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an injunction against a gambling establishment cannot be sustained where the plaintiff fails to prove that the operation constitutes a public nuisance under statutory definitions, specifically by failing to show that the premises attract disorderly persons or cause public disturbance.

Issues

Whether the operation of a gambling game constitutes a public nuisance subject to injunctive relief without proof of additional disorderly conduct or public disturbance.
Whether the failure to produce evidence regarding the type of persons frequenting the premises precludes the issuance of an injunction.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“there was a complete failure of proof upon a material and essential matter, in the absence of which the issuance of an injunction cannot be sustained.”

BARNARD, P. J. These are actions to enjoin as nuisances the operation of certain places in which it is alleged that gambling games are carried on. All of these were places in what is known as the Venice Amusement Zone. The seven cases were tried together and have been consolidated on this appeal. Insofar as material here, the cases are exactly similar and practically identical in all respects. For convenience, they will be discussed as if they were one ease.

It is alleged that the defendants, with the knowledge of the owners of the property, have been operating, conducting and maintaining a certain gambling game on the described premises ; that this gambling game is conducted in a manner which is described in detail; that the maintenance and operation of this gambling game “does now and will in the future constitute the keeping of a gambling house, a public nuisance, injurious to the health of the People of the State of California, for the reason that it tends to and does in fact debauch and corrupt the public morals, encourage idle and dissolute habits, draws together great numbers of disorderly persons, disturbs the public peace, brings together idle persons and cultivates dissolute habits between them, creates traffic hazards, and is thereby injurious to health, indecent and offensive to the senses and impairs the free enjoyment of life;” and that the maintenance and operation of said gambling game and public nuisance directly affects the entire community surrounding the city of Los Angeles and numerous other communities in Los Angeles County.

The prayer is that the court determine that the maintenance and operation of said gambling game on these premises constitutes a public nuisance, and that the defendants and their agents be forever enjoined and restrained from maintaining or operating said gambling game on said premises. The court found in accordance with the allegations of the complaint and, among other things, found that the game as described in the complaint is a gambling game; that the defendants and their agents threaten to and will continue the operation of said gambling game on said premises unless restrained [581]from so doing; that the maintenance and operation of said gambling game has in the past and will in the future constitute the keeping of a gambling house, a public nuisance; and that the maintenance and operation of said gambling game and gambling house is and will be injurious to the health, public welfare and morals of the people of this state. The judgments order the issuance of injunctions against the operation of such a gambling house on said premises. These appeals followed.

People v. Robbin

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief