Almar Ltd. v. County of Ventura

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 530·56 Cal. App. 4th 105·65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 70·97 Daily Journal DAR 8472·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5244
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 26, 1997No. B105238California2,111 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Yegan, J.

Over 75 years ago Justice Holmes said: “A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.” (Towne v. Eisner (1918) 245 U.S. 418, 425 [ 38 S.Ct. 158, 159 , 62 L.Ed. 372 ]; see also e.g., Pearson v. State Social Welfare Board *107 (1960) 54 Cal.2d 184, 195 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 553 , 353 P.2d 33 ].) This appeal turns on the meaning of a single word, “location.” The skin of this living thought may vary greatly. For example, it may expand to cover an entire country, or contract to cover a single boat slip.

Business and Professions Code section 12240 allows a county, by ordinance, to charge a fee for the inspection and testing of electric utility meters. 1 The fee cannot exceed the county’s actual inspection costs and is subject to a statutory cap based on the number of meters installed at each “location.” (§ 12240, subd. (f).) But what is a location? Section 12240 does not define the term and we are once again called upon to ascertain legislative intent.

The County of Ventura (County) contends that each boat slip in a 455-slip marina is a…

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.