How have courts interpreted the meaning of a section of the California Statutory Code of Civil Procedure requiring a cap on the amount of cannabis that can be confiscated?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian, 258 Cal.Rptr. 161, 48 Cal.3d 805, 771 P.2d 1247 (Cal. 1989):
15 This construction is supported by the precept that "[i]f feasible within bounds set by their words and purpose, statutes should be construed to preserve their constitutionality." (Conservatorship of Hofferber (1980) 28 Cal.3d 161, 175, 167 Cal.Rptr. 854, 616 P.2d 836; see Young v. Haines (1986) 41 Cal.3d 883, 898, 226 Cal.Rptr. 547, 718 P.2d 909 and cases there cited.) But resort to canons of construction is hardly necessary here. That a "confiscatory" rate is an "inadequate" rate seems self-evident, and no one has advocated an alternative interpretation of the statutory language.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
