Supreme Court of California
159 P.3d 33 (2007)
In 1989, the City of Hanford (Hanford) (defendant) created a Planned Commercial district (PC district). Furniture stores and the sale of furniture were not included as permitted uses within the PC district, because Hanford did not want the PC district to have a negative effect on Hanford’s downtown commercial district, which had a large number of regionally well-regarded furniture stores. In 2002, Adrian and Tracy Hernandez (plaintiffs) wanted to start a home-furnishing store in the PC district. In February 2003, Hanford issued the Hernandezes a certificate of occupancy, permitting the store to sell home-furnishing accessories but specifically excluding all types of furniture. The Hernandezes then opened their home-furnishings store. Subsequently, the Hernandezes were cited for offering furniture for sale in violation of the zoning ordinances. The Hernandezes sent a letter to the Hanford city council, complaining that the zoning code was being discriminatorily applied, because the PC district included several large department stores that had sold furniture and not been cited. Subsequently, the city council held a study session to consider the issues raised by the Hernandezes’ letter. The study session was attended by the Hernandezes, representatives of the downtown furniture stores, and representatives of the PC district’s furniture stores. Following the study session, the city council decided that it was advisable to amend the 1989 zoning ordinances to create a limited exception, permitting large department stores within the PC district to sell furniture from a single location in the store measuring no more than 2,500 square feet. The Hernandezes sued, arguing that the ordinances banning small stores from selling furniture in the PC district but permitting large department stores to do so were invalid because: (1) the primary purpose of the ordinances was regulating economic competition, and (2) the ordinances violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and state constitutions. The trial court rejected the Hernandezes’ claims, but the court of appeals reversed. Hanford petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (George, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.