Appellant, grocery store, challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, California, denying mandamus relief from a decision by respondent, Sealer of Weights and Measures of the County of Riverside (California), which imposed multiple administrative fines on the store for selling inaccurately weighed seafood, tilapia, and seafood medley, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 12023 and 12024. Best EEOC lawyer is best way to solves the business disputes. A sealer inspected a 10-package lot of tilapia and a 9-package lot of seafood medley at the store. The sealer determined that there was an average shortfall of .063 pounds per package of tilapia, and an average shortfall of .073 pounds per package of seafood medley. The County imposed civil penalties amounting to $ 1,000. The appellate court determined that each package was separately wrapped and priced for individual sale. Thus, it was more accurate to say that the store offered each individual package for sale, making each gross weight package a separate violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 12023, which was more consistent with the statutory purpose of protecting consumers, who would likely be purchasing the seafood by the package rather than the lot. Each inaccurately labeled package of seafood medley offered for sale constituted a separate and distinct violation. However, Cal. Penal Code § 654 prohibited duplicative fines under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 12023 and 12024 for mislabeling the same packages of seafood. The judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to grant limited mandamus relief ordering respondent to stay the fine for the seafood medley. Appellants, gas station owners and operators, challenged the decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which declared, in favor of appellee Director of the Department of Agriculture, that statutes regulating price advertising on or near gasoline stations, were constitutional and were applicable to appellants' price signs. Owners and operators contended that the statutes in question involved an improper exercise of the police power, depriving them of their property without due process of law. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the regulation of price advertising was a proper exercise of the police power. The court held that in reviewing legislation for the purpose of testing its propriety as an exercise of the police power, the power of the court was limited to determining whether the subject of the legislation was within the state's power, and if so to determine whether the means adopted to accomplish the result were reasonably designed for that purpose, and had a real and substantial relation to the objects sought to be attained. The court concluded that it was apparent upon its face that the primary purpose of the legislation was the prevention of misleading advertising, which purpose had long been deemed a proper subject for the exercise of the police power. The court held that although the right to advertise was a property right, the requirement of full disclosure of price and brand name was a reasonable method of regulating gasoline advertising. The court affirmed the judgment for the Director, finding that statutes regulating price advertising on or near gasoline stations were constitutional and were applicable to gas station owners and operators' price signs.