# Oliva v. Swoap

> California Court of Appeal · June 15, 1976 · 59 Cal. App. 3d 130

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718375

## Case

- **Full name:** ROBERT OLIVA, an Incompetent Person, Etc., Et Al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. DAVID B. SWOAP, as Director, Etc., Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** June 15, 1976
- **Citations:** 59 Cal. App. 3d 130; 130 Cal. Rptr. 411; 1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1617
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Friedman
- **Judges:** Friedman, Puglia
- **Cited by:** 16 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/9718375

## Opinion text

FRIEDMAN, J.
I concur. I am not convinced that the court’s syntactical analysis of section 11004, subdivision (c), reflects the Legislature’s objective. The statute’s phraseology is ambiguous; has been on the books during a decade of welfare controversy; has engendered uncertainty and upset affecting administrators and recipients; has stimulated incessant lawsuits and judicial involvement; has never stimulated legislative clarification. The interpretation sought by plaintiffs is no better than that asserted by the department. I would sustain the department’s regulation on the theory that it represents one of several available interpretations of a murky statute. (Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Reimel 69 Cal.2d 172, 176 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 407 , 444 P.2d 79 ].)
A petition for a rehearing was denied July 9, 1976, and respondents’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 26, 1976. Tobriner, J., and Mosk, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718375. Public record. Not legal advice.