Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Penaat v. Zeiss
Citations: 97 Cal. App. 2d 909; 219 P.2d 60; 1950 Cal. App. LEXIS 1634Docket: Civ. 14214
Court: California Court of Appeal; June 9, 1950; California; State Appellate Court
In the case of WM. H. PENAAT v. E. E. ZEISS, the California Court of Appeals upheld the suspension of Penaat's contractor license for one year, following an appeal from the superior court's ruling. The appeal was based on accusations of violations of three sections of the Business and Professions Code—sections 7116, 7114, and 7119—consolidated into a single judgment. Penaat contested the constitutionality of these statutes, argued that the accusations were insufficient, and claimed that the evidence did not support the findings against him. The court clarified that section 7116, which allows disciplinary action for any wilful or fraudulent acts causing substantial injury, is not penal in nature, thus the due process requirements applicable to criminal cases do not apply. The court found the accusations to be sufficiently clear, noting that Penaat was charged with defrauding veterans by overcharging them beyond established ceiling prices. Furthermore, regarding section 7114, which prohibits aiding an unlicensed person, the evidence indicated that Penaat knowingly allowed an unlicensed contractor to use his license for compensation. The court affirmed the findings based on the substantial evidence presented. Section 7119 establishes that a contractor's willful failure to diligently prosecute a construction project, resulting in material injury to another party, can lead to disciplinary action. The case involved an accusation of lack of diligence due to an extended construction period from July 1946 to March 1948. The central issue was whether this delay was legally excused or constituted a lack of reasonable diligence. The appellant acknowledged the charge of unreasonable delay and presented evidence regarding this matter. The evidence supported the findings against the appellant. The reviewing court emphasized that it is not its role to reassess the evidence from the respondent board and will uphold the judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it. The judgment was affirmed, with Justices Goodell and Dooling concurring.