Residents brought action for declaratory relief, challenging as unconstitutional a county ordinance prohibiting more than four roosters on a single property without a rooster keeping operation permit.
The Superior Court entered judgment for county, and residents appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that:
- Residents could not maintain claim that ordinance was a regulatory taking in light of agreement to limit the scope of the issues tried to solely whether the ordinance was valid on its face;
- Residents failed to establish that burden which ordinance imposed on interstate commerce outweighed the benefit of the regulation;
- Exceptions to ordinance applicable only to minors did not violate equal protection on basis of age discrimination;
- Ordinance was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder;
- Residents failed to establish that ordinance violated right to privacy; and
- Ordinance was a valid exercise of the county’s police power.