Bernhardt

Bernhardt v. Board of Supervisors

Good Law
130 Cal. Rptr. 189·1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1589·58 Cal. App. 3d 806
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 1, 1976Civ. 36654California3,540 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rattigan, J.

An Alameda County ordinance, and administrative regulations adopted as “interpretations” thereof, purport to apply special standards of eligibility, for General Assistance welfare payments, to residents of the county described as “young adults.” Jeffrey Bernhardt and Harvey Drobenare appeal from a judgment which upholds the validity of the ordinance and regulations and denies appellants judicial relief from administrative action taken by respondents pursuant to both. We. hold that the ordinance and regulations are invalid because they are in conflict with the statutes of this state which control eligibility for General Assistance payments. We accordingly reverse the judgment with directions.

Facts

The record supports this recital of the facts which are undisputed:

At its 1971 regular session, the Legislature adopted an enactment to which the parties refer by its unofficial title as—and which we call—the Priolo Act. (Stats. 1971, ch. 1748, p. 3736 et seq.) Except for some purposes, which it recited, the enactment lowered the age of majority in this state from 21 to 18 years of age. (Id., §§ 1 [p. 3736] 23 [p. 3746].) The stated exceptions did not include any purpose…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.