Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Uniongreen2 sentences2025(See Ashcroft, supra, 542 U.S. at p. 665 [a challenged provision is “ ‘unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve’ ”]; see generally Strict Judicial Scrutiny, supra, 54 UCLA L.Rev. at p. 1326 [characterizing this analysis as “express[ing] essentially the same demand” as the narrow tailoring inquiry].) As explained below, I disagree with plaintiff’s position. 2025(See Ashcroft, supra, 542 U.S. at p. 665 [a challenged provision is “ ‘unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve’ ”]; see generally Strict Judicial Scrutiny, supra, 54 UCLA L.Rev. at p. 1326 [characterizing this analysis as “express[ing] essentially the same demand” as the narrow tailoring inquiry].) As explained below, I disagree with plaintiff’s position. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Erica R.green1 sentence2026(See In re P.O. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 288, 296 [cited by L.B.; in discussing Lent’s third prong, appellate court declines to adopt a strict tailoring requirement that would make it impossible to impose standard search conditions]; In re Erica R. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 907, 914 [finding electronic search condition was not properly tailored under Lent].)2 In any event, we note the trial court here did extensively modify the set of probation conditions initially recommended by the probation officer. | 1 | 1 |
People v. P.O.green1 sentence2026(See In re P.O. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 288, 296 [cited by L.B.; in discussing Lent’s third prong, appellate court declines to adopt a strict tailoring requirement that would make it impossible to impose standard search conditions]; In re Erica R. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 907, 914 [finding electronic search condition was not properly tailored under Lent].)2 In any event, we note the trial court here did extensively modify the set of probation conditions initially recommended by the probation officer. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Lifschutz
green
2 sentences2015(Ibid.) The California Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Lifschutz that any such exception must be narrowly construed, ibid., “concomitant with the purposes of the exception.” (Lifschutz, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 435 .) These principles resemble the tailoring analysis in which a court considers whether a probation condition imposing limitations on a person’s constitutional rights is closely tailored to the purpose of the condition. 2015(Ibid.) The court reaffirmed the holding of Lifschutz that any such exception must be narrowly construed, ibid., “concomitant with the purposes of the exception.” (Lifschutz, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 435 .) These principles resemble the tailoring analysis in which a court considers whether a probation condition imposing limitations on a person’s constitutional rights is closely tailored to the purpose of the condition. | 4 | 2014–2015 |
In Re Sheena K.
green
2 sentences2015(In re Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 890 .) In Gonzales, supra, 56 Cal.4th 353 , the court recently considered the psychotherapist-patient privilege in the context of a proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). 2015(In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890 .) In Gonzales, supra, 56 Cal.4th 353 , the California Supreme Court recently considered the psychotherapist-patient privilege in the context of a proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). | 4 | 2014–2015 |
People v. Gonzales
green
2 sentences2015(In re Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 890 .) In Gonzales, supra, 56 Cal.4th 353 , the court recently considered the psychotherapist-patient privilege in the context of a proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). 2015(In re Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 890 .) In Gonzales, supra, 56 Cal.4th 353 , the court recently considered the psychotherapist-patient privilege in the context of a proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). | 4 | 2014–2015 |
Reed v. Town of Gilbert
green
1 sentence2021The government must also show the statute furthers the compelling interest and is “narrowly tailored to that end.” (Reed, supra, 576 U.S. at p. 171 .) To satisfy the narrow tailoring requirement in the case of a content-based speech restriction, the government must show the law is the least restrictive alternative of achieving the government interest. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Wood v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2019It requires that the state utilize the ‘least intrusive’ means to satisfy its interest. [Citation.]” (Wood, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 1148 .) In Cross, the court concluded that although the requirement that the Board proceed in the least intrusive manner meant that it had to first “pursue voluntary means of obtaining the information sought before resorting to compulsory process,” it did not “impose[] . . . a strict narrow tailoring requirement . . . .” (Cross, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 329 .) Rather, “information demanded by an administrative subpoena in a case like this must be ‘“relevant | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Cross v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
green
2 sentences2019It requires that the state utilize the ‘least intrusive’ means to satisfy its interest. [Citation.]” (Wood, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 1148 .) In Cross, the court concluded that although the requirement that the Board proceed in the least intrusive manner meant that it had to first “pursue voluntary means of obtaining the information sought before resorting to compulsory process,” it did not “impose[] . . . a strict narrow tailoring requirement . . . .” (Cross, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 329 .) Rather, “information demanded by an administrative subpoena in a case like this must be ‘“relevant 2019The subpoenas only sought information that was “‘relevant and material’” (Cross, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 329 ) to the Board’s investigation. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.