California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People by Howser ex rel. Levin v. Santa Clara County, 231 P.2d 826, 37 Cal.2d 335 (Cal. 1951):
The disapproval of certain language used in People v. City of Buenaventura, supra, 213 Cal. 637, 3 P.2d 3, would not imply that the decision should be overruled. The situation in that case is clearly distinguishable. There it affirmatively appeared on the face of the concurrent resolution that one entire step required by the Constitution for the adoption of charter had been omitted. It was there held that it is not for the courts to say that such entire step could be omitted when the Constitution provided otherwise. But if, as here, it affirmatively appears on the face of the concurrent resolution that every step was completed in exact conformance with the constitutional requirements, except for certain typographical errors which crept into some of the publications involved in completing the publication step, then it is for the courts to determine whether such errors were of such minor nature that there was nevertheless substantial compliance with the constitutional requirements.
As stated by Mr. Justice McFarland in his concurring opinion in People v. Gunn, supra, 85 Cal. 238, 250, 24 P. 718, 721; 'Because the constitution declares the provisions to be mandatory, it does not follow that a substantial compliance with them is not sufficient. The proceedings for the adoption of a charter will probably never be so literally perfect that a critical and hostile eye cannot detect in them some slight defect or irregularity, which ought not to be considered fatal. Whether or not there has been a sufficient compliance with the constitution in any particular case must depend on the particular facts of that case.'
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.