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.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2009 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Mellongreen2 sentences1975(See Thompson v. Mellon (1973) 9 Cal.3d 96, 111-112 [107 Cal.Rptr. 20 , 507 P.2d 628 , 65 A.L.R.3d 1029 ] (Burke, J., dissenting).) The difficulty of ferreting out spurious candidates is compounded by the Supreme Court’s decision in Dunn v. Blumstein (1972) 405 U.S. 330 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 274 , 92 S.Ct. 995 ], wherein a durational residency requirement for voters was struck down. 1975(See Thompson v. Mellon (1973) 9 Cal.3d 96, 111-112 [107 Cal.Rptr. 20 , 507 P.2d 628 , 65 A.L.R.3d 1029 ] (Burke, J., dissenting).) The difficulty of ferreting out spurious candidates is compounded by the Supreme Court’s decision in Dunn v. Blumstein (1972) 405 U.S. 330 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 274 , 92 S.Ct. 995 ], wherein a durational residency requirement for voters was struck down. | 1 | 2 |
Fisher v. Reisergreen2 sentences2001The Ninth Circuit stated: “[W]hen we contrast the claim presented here with that of the three principal Supreme Court cases discussing withholding of rights or benefits as a result of interstate migration, we find that the absence of a political or residential relation between the claimant and the state, the absence of a durational residency requirement, and the fact that eligibility is not based upon need are all factors which detract from the strength of the claim to such an extent that the statutory classification does not burden the right of travel in a manner requiring strict scrutiny.” ( 2001The Ninth Circuit stated: "[W]hen we contrast the claim presented here with that of the three principal Supreme Court cases discussing withholding of rights or benefits as a result of interstate migration, we find that the absence of a political or residential relation between the claimant and the state, the absence of a durational residency requirement, and the fact that eligibility is not based upon need are all factors which detract from the strength of the claim to such an extent that the statutory classification does not burden the right of travel in a manner requiring strict scrutiny." ( | 1 | 1 |
Terry v. Civil Service Commissiongreen2 sentences1979(Terry v. Civil Service Commission, 108 Cal.App.2d 861, 870 [ 240 P.2d 691 ].) As to the right to travel, the Commission relies on Ector v. City of Torrance, supra, 10 Cal.3d 129 , to argue that there is no right to commute. 1979(Terry v. Civil Service Commission, 108 Cal.App.2d 861, 870 [ 240 P.2d 691 ].) As to the right to travel, the Commission relies on Ector v. City of Torrance, supra, 10 Cal.3d 129 , to argue that there is no right to commute. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences1978(Zeilenga v. Nelson, supra, 4 Cal.3d 716, 722; Thompson v. Mellon, supra, 9 Cal.3d 96, 104-105 ; Johnson v. Hamilton (1975) 15 Cal.3d 461, 470 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 541 P.2d 881 ].) As stated in Johnson, supra, “[i]n terms of the education of the candidate, the argument that an extended residence is necessary for an understanding of local issues, while perhaps appealing in the abstract, nonetheless ignores the hard realities bearing on the relationship of candidate and issue. 1978(Zeilenga v. Nelson, supra, 4 Cal.3d 716, 722; Thompson v. Mellon, supra, 9 Cal.3d 96, 104-105 ; Johnson v. Hamilton (1975) 15 Cal.3d 461, 470 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 541 P.2d 881 ].) As stated in Johnson, supra, “[i]n terms of the education of the candidate, the argument that an extended residence is necessary for an understanding of local issues, while perhaps appealing in the abstract, nonetheless ignores the hard realities bearing on the relationship of candidate and issue. | 1 | 1 |
Zeilenga v. Nelsongreen2 sentences1978(Zeilenga v. Nelson, supra, 4 Cal.3d 716, 722; Thompson v. Mellon, supra, 9 Cal.3d 96, 104-105 ; Johnson v. Hamilton (1975) 15 Cal.3d 461, 470 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 541 P.2d 881 ].) As stated in Johnson, supra, “[i]n terms of the education of the candidate, the argument that an extended residence is necessary for an understanding of local issues, while perhaps appealing in the abstract, nonetheless ignores the hard realities bearing on the relationship of candidate and issue. 1978(Zeilenga v. Nelson, supra, 4 Cal.3d 716, 722; Thompson v. Mellon, supra, 9 Cal.3d 96, 104-105 ; Johnson v. Hamilton (1975) 15 Cal.3d 461, 470 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 541 P.2d 881 ].) As stated in Johnson, supra, “[i]n terms of the education of the candidate, the argument that an extended residence is necessary for an understanding of local issues, while perhaps appealing in the abstract, nonetheless ignores the hard realities bearing on the relationship of candidate and issue. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shapiro v. Thompson
green
2 sentences1981In the landmark case of Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) 394 U.S. 618 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 600 , 89 S.Ct. 1322 ], which case the court in Kirk discusses, the United States Supreme Court struck down a durational residency requirement for receipt of welfare benefits as an unconstitutional burden on the right to interstate travel. 1981In the landmark case of Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) 394 U.S. 618 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 600 , 89 S.Ct. 1322 ], which case the court in Kirk discusses, the United States Supreme Court struck down a durational residency requirement for receipt of welfare benefits as an unconstitutional burden on the right to interstate travel. | 3 | 1974–1981 |
Dunn v. Blumstein
green
2 sentences1975(See Thompson v. Mellon (1973) 9 Cal.3d 96, 111-112 [107 Cal.Rptr. 20 , 507 P.2d 628 , 65 A.L.R.3d 1029 ] (Burke, J., dissenting).) The difficulty of ferreting out spurious candidates is compounded by the Supreme Court’s decision in Dunn v. Blumstein (1972) 405 U.S. 330 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 274 , 92 S.Ct. 995 ], wherein a durational residency requirement for voters was struck down. 1975(See Thompson v. Mellon (1973) 9 Cal.3d 96, 111-112 [107 Cal.Rptr. 20 , 507 P.2d 628 , 65 A.L.R.3d 1029 ] (Burke, J., dissenting).) The difficulty of ferreting out spurious candidates is compounded by the Supreme Court’s decision in Dunn v. Blumstein (1972) 405 U.S. 330 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 274 , 92 S.Ct. 995 ], wherein a durational residency requirement for voters was struck down. | 2 | 1974–1975 |
People v. Poslof
green
1 sentence2009The defendant in Poslof registered an address in Merced County but then purchased a house in San Bernardino County. ( Id. at p. 96.) At trial the defendant contended that his San Bernardino County house was not his residence because he had not stayed there for five consecutive working days, and he proposed a jury instruction to that effect, which the trial court rejected. ( Id. at p. 97.) We affirmed the trial court's rejection because the five-working-day timeframe was the grace period for registering changes and not a durational residency requirement under the statute. ( Id. at pp. 101-103.) | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Kirk v. Regents of University of California
green
2 sentences1981She applied for admission to LACC on January 2, 1979, registering as a full time student on January 19, 1979, at which time she was classified as a nonresident pursuant to Education Code sections 68018, 68040, subdivision (b) and 68050. 1 Contentions Gurfinkel contends that the trial court erred in denying her petition as the durational residency requirement for tuition purposes set forth in Education Code sections 68018, 68040, 68050, 68071, 76140, 89705, and California Administrative Code, title 5, section 54001, constitutes (1) an unconstitutional burden on the fundamental right to a colleg 1981She applied for admission to LACC on January 2, 1979, registering as a full time student on January 19, 1979, at which time she was classified as a nonresident pursuant to Education Code sections 68018, 68040, subdivision (b) and 68050. 1 Contentions Gurfinkel contends that the trial court erred in denying her petition as the durational residency requirement for tuition purposes set forth in Education Code sections 68018, 68040, 68050, 68071, 76140, 89705, and California Administrative Code, title 5, section 54001, constitutes (1) an unconstitutional burden on the fundamental right to a colleg | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Serrano v. Priest
green
2 sentences1981She applied for admission to LACC on January 2, 1979, registering as a full time student on January 19, 1979, at which time she was classified as a nonresident pursuant to Education Code sections 68018, 68040, subdivision (b) and 68050. 1 Contentions Gurfinkel contends that the trial court erred in denying her petition as the durational residency requirement for tuition purposes set forth in Education Code sections 68018, 68040, 68050, 68071, 76140, 89705, and California Administrative Code, title 5, section 54001, constitutes (1) an unconstitutional burden on the fundamental right to a colleg 1981She applied for admission to LACC on January 2, 1979, registering as a full time student on January 19, 1979, at which time she was classified as a nonresident pursuant to Education Code sections 68018, 68040, subdivision (b) and 68050. 1 Contentions Gurfinkel contends that the trial court erred in denying her petition as the durational residency requirement for tuition purposes set forth in Education Code sections 68018, 68040, 68050, 68071, 76140, 89705, and California Administrative Code, title 5, section 54001, constitutes (1) an unconstitutional burden on the fundamental right to a colleg | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Adams v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1979Thus, the requirement has insufficient effect on the right to travel to compel strict judicial scrutiny.” (Adams v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 55, 62 , [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 247 , 524 P.2d 375 ] (italics added.) Even if the residency requirement in the victims of crime statute would deter some individuals from visiting the state, we believe that the extent of any such deterrence would be “inconsequential.” 1979Thus, the requirement has insufficient effect on the right to travel to compel strict judicial scrutiny.” (Adams v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 55, 62 , [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 247 , 524 P.2d 375 ] (italics added.) Even if the residency requirement in the victims of crime statute would deter some individuals from visiting the state, we believe that the extent of any such deterrence would be “inconsequential.” | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Ector v. City of Torrance
green
2 sentences1979(Terry v. Civil Service Commission, 108 Cal.App.2d 861, 870 [ 240 P.2d 691 ].) As to the right to travel, the Commission relies on Ector v. City of Torrance, supra, 10 Cal.3d 129 , to argue that there is no right to commute. 1979(Terry v. Civil Service Commission, 108 Cal.App.2d 861, 870 [ 240 P.2d 691 ].) As to the right to travel, the Commission relies on Ector v. City of Torrance, supra, 10 Cal.3d 129 , to argue that there is no right to commute. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County
green
2 sentences1974The Supreme Court cases holding a classification unconstitutional because it impinges on the right to travel involve regulations denying very substantial rights or needs to short term residents. (.Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, 394 U.S. 618 (funds necessary for subsistence); Dunn v. Blumstein, supra, 405 U.S. 330 (right to vote); Memorial Hospital v. City of Maricopa (1974) 415 U.S. 250 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 306 , 94 S.Ct. 1076 ] (medical care).) In these cases the court has examined two factors: (1) whether the residency requirement would deter migration; and (2) the extent to which the waiting period se 1974The Supreme Court cases holding a classification unconstitutional because it impinges on the right to travel involve regulations denying very substantial rights or needs to short term residents. (.Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, 394 U.S. 618 (funds necessary for subsistence); Dunn v. Blumstein, supra, 405 U.S. 330 (right to vote); Memorial Hospital v. City of Maricopa (1974) 415 U.S. 250 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 306 , 94 S.Ct. 1076 ] (medical care).) In these cases the court has examined two factors: (1) whether the residency requirement would deter migration; and (2) the extent to which the waiting period se | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.