incorporate California

Appellant aliens challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of San
Diego County (California), which upheld the Alien Property Initiative Act of
1920 (Act), Stats. 1921, p. lxxxiii, in respondent state's action to escheat land.
The incorporate
California allow you to protect your business.

The alien claimed that his son, who was eligible to be a
citizen, owned the land in controversy and that he merely operated the land for
his son. The court held that the test of a "clear and present danger"
to fundamental liberties did not restrict the authority of a state, under its
police power, to limit the rights of aliens in regard to real property situated
within its borders; only a rational basis was necessary. The court found that
the Act, which was enacted to place the ownership of real property in the state
beyond the reach of an alien ineligible to citizenship, met the rational basis
test. The law prohibited an alien from acquiring real property and from
possessing, enjoying, using, or cultivating land. The court held that any
attempt to convey real property, or the beneficial use thereof, to an
ineligible alien was void. The court held that the alien's statute of
limitations argument was inapplicable because the law's provisions were
inconsistent with a statute of limitations. The court also rejected the laches
defense, finding no injury resulted by reason of the lapse of time that occurred
before the commencement of the proceeding.

The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court in favor
of the state in its action to escheat land from an alien ineligible for
citizenship.

Plaintiff car buyer appealed an order from the Superior
Court of San Diego County (California), which denied her motion to certify a
class pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 382, in an unfair competition action under
Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq., alleging that a notice of intention
(NOI) sent by defendant finance company had not complied with the Rees-Levering
Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act, Civ. Code, § 2981 et seq.

The buyer alleged that the NOI was inadequate because it
failed to specify all payments required to cure the buyer's default. The finance
company asserted that it could successfully defend the unfair competition claim
because it could have denied the reinstatement right under Civ. Code, § 2983.3,
subd. (b)(1), based on false statements on the credit application. The trial
court, in denying certification, found that common issues did not predominate
because it was unclear whether reinstatement could be denied on the same ground
as to each individual class member. The court held that the false statements
exception provided no basis to deny certification because the time period in
Civ. Code, § 2983.2, subd. (a)(2), to give notice of a denial of the
reinstatement right had expired. A creditor wishing to preserve its rights to
claim a deficiency was required to determine within a 60-day period after
repossession whether a buyer was entitled to reinstatement and then notify the
buyer of this decision. The limitations period did not implicate due process;
moreover, the finance company proffered no facts showing that the false
statements exception would apply to other class members.

The court reversed and remanded with directions to the trial
court to reconsider its class certification ruling.