# Klarfeld v. Berg

> California Supreme Court · September 10, 1981 · 29 Cal. 3d 893

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9602027

## Case

- **Full name:** HARRIET KLARFELD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EVERETT E. BERG, Defendant and Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 10, 1981
- **Citations:** 29 Cal. 3d 893; 176 Cal. Rptr. 539; 633 P.2d 203; 1981 Cal. LEXIS 170
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kingsley
- **Judges:** Mosk
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9602027

## Opinion text

*903 KINGSLEY, J. *
I concur in the result. However I do not join the portion of the majority opinion that relies, in part, on the March 1979 ordinance.
As I read the record before us, the city council, faced with the situation explained in the preamble to the August 1978 ordinance, elected to stay all rent increases in the city, except in five situations—in one of which (exception No. 4) it had no jurisdiction to act and in the other four where the problem facing the council was unlikely to arise. In so acting, the council acted rationally to give it time, after study and hearings, to determine the reasonable extent of the exercise of its power over rents. We are here concerned only with the impact of the August ordinance. That, by March, the council had concluded that the overall prohibition was unnecessary and, then, so advised, enacted a different set of restrictions, has no bearing on its intent in August, when the “stay” ordinance was enacted. Only the August ordinance is before us in this case.
Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9602027. Public record. Not legal advice.