# Bueneman v. City of Santa Barbara

> California Supreme Court · February 27, 1937 · 8 Cal. 2d 405

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794279

## Case

- **Full name:** FRED T. BUENEMAN Et Al., Appellants, v. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA (A Municipal Corporation) Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 27, 1937
- **Citations:** 8 Cal. 2d 405; 65 P.2d 884; 109 A.L.R. 895; 1937 Cal. LEXIS 504
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Seawell
- **Judges:** Edmonds, Seawell
- **Cited by:** 45 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/9794279

## Opinion text

SEAWELL, J., Dissenting.
I dissent.
I am of the opinion that the rule enunciated in Ex parte Haskell, 112 Cal. 412 [ 44 Pac. 725 , 32 L. R. A. 527], E. A. Hoffman Candy Co. v. City of Newport Beach, 120 Cal. App. 525 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 235 , California F. S. Co. v. Santa Monica, 206 Cal. 714 [ 275 Pac. 948 ], and Richmond Linen Co. v. Lynchburg, 160 Va. 644 [ 169 S. E. 554 ], is controlling. Those cases, in my opinion, clearly establish that the ordinance of *416 Santa Barbara under consideration herein does not unlawfully discriminate between classes, and is a reasonable exercise of municipal power. Once it is conceded, as docs the majority opinion, that the power exists to classify between inside and outside businesses, then the sole question is whether the particular ordinance is reasonable. The mere fact that inside business is not taxed at all under the present ordinance is immaterial. The question is simply one of degree.
Langdon, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794279. Public record. Not legal advice.