press violation (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

press violation in California

8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2016 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.

Followed or applied (11)

CaseFollowedCited
Alpert v. VILLA ROMANO HOMEOWNERS ASSN.green
calctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016(Alcaraz, at p. 1156; Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 118-119 , abrogated in part by statute as stated in Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery (1998) 19 Cal.4th 714, 722 ); Alpert v. Villa Romano Homeowners Assn. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1320, 1330, fn. 9 .) Here, Ebert contends the court's summary adjudication was improper because the Press defendants' motion addressed only negligent inspection and not negligent maintenance but this is a distinction without a difference.

11
Rothman v. Jacksongreen
calctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008Like the government officials in Barr, Saroyan and Kilgore, Woodford released the termination letter to the press in defense of a policy decision she made. ( Saroyan, supra, 57 Cal.2d at pp. 710-711.) As Director of Corrections, Woodford had a “duty to communicate with the press about matters of public concern.” (Morrow, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 1431 .) *1089 “Because a public official’s duty includes the duty to keep the public informed of his or her management of the public business, press releases, press conferences and other public statements by such officials are covered by the ‘offic

2008Like the government officials in Barr, Saroyan and Kilgore, Woodford released the termination letter to the press in defense of a policy decision she made. ( Saroyan, supra, 57 Cal.2d at pp. 710-711.) As Director of Corrections, Woodford had a “duty to communicate with the press about matters of public concern.” (Morrow, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 1431 .) *1089 “Because a public official’s duty includes the duty to keep the public informed of his or her management of the public business, press releases, press conferences and other public statements by such officials are covered by the ‘offic

11
State v. Kochgreen
vt · 1999 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007(See, e.g., State v. Koch (1999) 169 Vt. 109, 115 [ 730 A.2d 577 ] [holding that the court erred in excluding the press from a hearing on' the state’s motion to revoke the criminal defendant’s order of nonhospitalization, particularly because the defendant’s medical records were not confidential under Vermont law]; In re Belle (1992) 107 N.C.

2007(See, e.g., State v. Koch (1999) 169 Vt. 109, 115 [ 730 A.2d 577 ] [holding that the court erred in excluding the press from a hearing on' the state’s motion to revoke the criminal defendant’s order of nonhospitalization, particularly because the defendant’s medical records were not confidential under Vermont law]; In re Belle (1992) 107 N.C.

11
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillogreen
scotus · 1974 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
2 sentences

1986(See Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974) 418 U.S. 241, 256 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 730, 740 , 94 S.Ct. 2831 ].) The First Amendment grants the press a privilege to report and comment upon official actions with no requirement that an individual’s reputation be spared.

1986(See Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974) 418 U.S. 241, 256 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 730, 740 , 94 S.Ct. 2831 ].) The First Amendment grants the press a privilege to report and comment upon official actions with no requirement that an individual’s reputation be spared.

11
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc.red
scotus · 1971 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
2 sentences

1986(Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, supra, 403 U.S. 29, 62 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 296, 322 ], conc. opn. of White, J.) As this court recently observed: “Fair and objective reporting may be a worthy ideal, but there is also room, within the protection of the First Amendment, for writing which seeks to expose wrongdoing and arouse righteous anger. . . .” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 259 .) The constitutional protections afforded the media under New York Times present a formidable barrier to public official plaintiffs.

1986(Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, supra, 403 U.S. 29, 62 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 296, 322 ], conc. opn. of White, J.) As this court recently observed: “Fair and objective reporting may be a worthy ideal, but there is also room, within the protection of the First Amendment, for writing which seeks to expose wrongdoing and arouse righteous anger. . . .” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 259 .) The constitutional protections afforded the media under New York Times present a formidable barrier to public official plaintiffs.

11
Near v. Minnesota Ex Rel. Olsongreen
scotus · 1931 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
2 sentences

1976(See Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 711-715, 720 [ 75 L.Ed. 1357, 1365-1367, 1369 , 51 S.Ct. 625 ]; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) 372 U.S. 58, 70-71 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 584, 593-594 , 83 S.Ct. 631 ]; Freedman v. Maryland, supra, 380 U.S. 51, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 649, 653-654 ]; Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175, 180-181 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 325, 330-331 , 89 S.Ct. 347 ]; see and compare Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, 354 U.S. 436 ; see also Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 656, 664-665 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 320 , 488 P.2d 648 ]; Flack v. Municipal Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 981, 98

1976(See Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 711-715, 720 [ 75 L.Ed. 1357, 1365-1367, 1369 , 51 S.Ct. 625 ]; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) 372 U.S. 58, 70-71 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 584, 593-594 , 83 S.Ct. 631 ]; Freedman v. Maryland, supra, 380 U.S. 51, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 649, 653-654 ]; Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175, 180-181 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 325, 330-331 , 89 S.Ct. 347 ]; see and compare Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, 354 U.S. 436 ; see also Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 656, 664-665 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 320 , 488 P.2d 648 ]; Flack v. Municipal Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 981, 98

11
Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Browngreen
scotus · 1957 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
2 sentences

1976(See Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 711-715, 720 [ 75 L.Ed. 1357, 1365-1367, 1369 , 51 S.Ct. 625 ]; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) 372 U.S. 58, 70-71 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 584, 593-594 , 83 S.Ct. 631 ]; Freedman v. Maryland, supra, 380 U.S. 51, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 649, 653-654 ]; Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175, 180-181 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 325, 330-331 , 89 S.Ct. 347 ]; see and compare Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, 354 U.S. 436 ; see also Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 656, 664-665 [ 97 Cal. Rptr. 320 , 488 P.2d 648 ]; Flack v. Municipal Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 981, 9

1976(See Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 711-715, 720 [ 75 L.Ed. 1357, 1365-1367, 1369 , 51 S.Ct. 625 ]; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) 372 U.S. 58, 70-71 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 584, 593-594 , 83 S.Ct. 631 ]; Freedman v. Maryland, supra, 380 U.S. 51, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 649, 653-654 ]; Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175, 180-181 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 325, 330-331 , 89 S.Ct. 347 ]; see and compare Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, 354 U.S. 436 ; see also Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 656, 664-665 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 320 , 488 P.2d 648 ]; Flack v. Municipal Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 981, 98

11
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivangreen
scotus · 1963 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
2 sentences

1976(See Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 711-715, 720 [ 75 L.Ed. 1357, 1365-1367, 1369 , 51 S.Ct. 625 ]; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) 372 U.S. 58, 70-71 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 584, 593-594 , 83 S.Ct. 631 ]; Freedman v. Maryland, supra, 380 U.S. 51, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 649, 653-654 ]; Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175, 180-181 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 325, 330-331 , 89 S.Ct. 347 ]; see and compare Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, 354 U.S. 436 ; see also Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 656, 664-665 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 320 , 488 P.2d 648 ]; Flack v. Municipal Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 981, 98

1976(See Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 711-715, 720 [ 75 L.Ed. 1357, 1365-1367, 1369 , 51 S.Ct. 625 ]; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) 372 U.S. 58, 70-71 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 584, 593-594 , 83 S.Ct. 631 ]; Freedman v. Maryland, supra, 380 U.S. 51, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 649, 653-654 ]; Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175, 180-181 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 325, 330-331 , 89 S.Ct. 347 ]; see and compare Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, 354 U.S. 436 ; see also Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 656, 664-665 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 320 , 488 P.2d 648 ]; Flack v. Municipal Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 981, 98

11
Carroll v. President & Commissioners of Princess Annegreen
scotus · 1968 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
2 sentences

1976(See Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 711-715, 720 [ 75 L.Ed. 1357, 1365-1367, 1369 , 51 S.Ct. 625 ]; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) 372 U.S. 58, 70-71 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 584, 593-594 , 83 S.Ct. 631 ]; Freedman v. Maryland, supra, 380 U.S. 51, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 649, 653-654 ]; Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175, 180-181 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 325, 330-331 , 89 S.Ct. 347 ]; see and compare Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, 354 U.S. 436 ; see also Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 656, 664-665 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 320 , 488 P.2d 648 ]; Flack v. Municipal Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 981, 98

1976(See Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 711-715, 720 [ 75 L.Ed. 1357, 1365-1367, 1369 , 51 S.Ct. 625 ]; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) 372 U.S. 58, 70-71 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 584, 593-594 , 83 S.Ct. 631 ]; Freedman v. Maryland, supra, 380 U.S. 51, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 649, 653-654 ]; Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175, 180-181 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 325, 330-331 , 89 S.Ct. 347 ]; see and compare Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, 354 U.S. 436 ; see also Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 656, 664-665 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 320 , 488 P.2d 648 ]; Flack v. Municipal Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 981, 98

11
Freedman v. Marylandgreen
scotus · 1965 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
2 sentences

1976(See Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 711-715, 720 [ 75 L.Ed. 1357, 1365-1367, 1369 , 51 S.Ct. 625 ]; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) 372 U.S. 58, 70-71 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 584, 593-594 , 83 S.Ct. 631 ]; Freedman v. Maryland, supra, 380 U.S. 51, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 649, 653-654 ]; Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175, 180-181 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 325, 330-331 , 89 S.Ct. 347 ]; see and compare Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, 354 U.S. 436 ; see also Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 656, 664-665 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 320 , 488 P.2d 648 ]; Flack v. Municipal Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 981, 98

1976(See Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 711-715, 720 [ 75 L.Ed. 1357, 1365-1367, 1369 , 51 S.Ct. 625 ]; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) 372 U.S. 58, 70-71 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 584, 593-594 , 83 S.Ct. 631 ]; Freedman v. Maryland, supra, 380 U.S. 51, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 649, 653-654 ]; Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175, 180-181 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 325, 330-331 , 89 S.Ct. 347 ]; see and compare Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, 354 U.S. 436 ; see also Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 656, 664-665 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 320 , 488 P.2d 648 ]; Flack v. Municipal Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 981, 98

11
Perrine v. Municipal Courtgreen
cal · 1971 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
2 sentences

1976(See Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 711-715, 720 [ 75 L.Ed. 1357, 1365-1367, 1369 , 51 S.Ct. 625 ]; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) 372 U.S. 58, 70-71 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 584, 593-594 , 83 S.Ct. 631 ]; Freedman v. Maryland, supra, 380 U.S. 51, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 649, 653-654 ]; Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175, 180-181 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 325, 330-331 , 89 S.Ct. 347 ]; see and compare Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, 354 U.S. 436 ; see also Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 656, 664-665 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 320 , 488 P.2d 648 ]; Flack v. Municipal Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 981, 98

1976(See Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 711-715, 720 [ 75 L.Ed. 1357, 1365-1367, 1369 , 51 S.Ct. 625 ]; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) 372 U.S. 58, 70-71 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 584, 593-594 , 83 S.Ct. 631 ]; Freedman v. Maryland, supra, 380 U.S. 51, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 649, 653-654 ]; Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175, 180-181 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 325, 330-331 , 89 S.Ct. 347 ]; see and compare Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, 354 U.S. 436 ; see also Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 656, 664-665 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 320 , 488 P.2d 648 ]; Flack v. Municipal Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 981, 98

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (14)

CaseCitedYears
Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery green
cal · 1998
1 sentence

2016(Alcaraz, at p. 1156; Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 118-119 , abrogated in part by statute as stated in Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery (1998) 19 Cal.4th 714, 722 ); Alpert v. Villa Romano Homeowners Assn. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1320, 1330, fn. 9 .) Here, Ebert contends the court's summary adjudication was improper because the Press defendants' motion addressed only negligent inspection and not negligent maintenance but this is a distinction without a difference.

12016–2016
Rowland v. Christian red
cal · 1968
1 sentence

2016(Alcaraz, at p. 1156; Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 118-119 , abrogated in part by statute as stated in Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery (1998) 19 Cal.4th 714, 722 ); Alpert v. Villa Romano Homeowners Assn. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1320, 1330, fn. 9 .) Here, Ebert contends the court's summary adjudication was improper because the Press defendants' motion addressed only negligent inspection and not negligent maintenance but this is a distinction without a difference.

12016–2016
Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified School District green
calctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2008Like the government officials in Barr, Saroyan and Kilgore, Woodford released the termination letter to the press in defense of a policy decision she made. ( Saroyan, supra, 57 Cal.2d at pp. 710-711.) As Director of Corrections, Woodford had a “duty to communicate with the press about matters of public concern.” (Morrow, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 1431 .) *1089 “Because a public official’s duty includes the duty to keep the public informed of his or her management of the public business, press releases, press conferences and other public statements by such officials are covered by the ‘offic

12008–2008
Matter of Belk green
ncctapp · 1992
2 sentences

2007(See, e.g., State v. Koch (1999) 169 Vt. 109, 115 [ 730 A.2d 577 ] [holding that the court erred in excluding the press from a hearing on' the state’s motion to revoke the criminal defendant’s order of nonhospitalization, particularly because the defendant’s medical records were not confidential under Vermont law]; In re Belle (1992) 107 N.C.

2007App. 448 , 452, 454 [ 420 S.E.2d 682 ] [affirming court’s decision to close the hearing for the involuntary commitment of a violent family member to a state hospital because, under North Carolina law, the public’s right to access does not extend to civil cases and civil commitment proceedings were intended to be private, informal, and nonadversarial].) However, in light of the rules governing public access in California, we are reluctant to require absolute closure in these cases.

12007–2007
Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. green
scotus · 1979
2 sentences

1994Under these circumstances, the District Court’s order abridges the freedom of the press in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” (Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Court, supra, 430 U.S. at pp. 311-312 [51 L.Ed.2d at pp. 358-359], fns. omitted.) In Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979) 443 U.S. 97 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 399 , 99 S.Ct. 2667 ], the Supreme Court concluded that a West Virginia statute making it a crime for a newspaper to publish the name of a minor charged as a juvenile offender without first obtaining written permission from the court violated the First and Fourteenth A

1994Under these circumstances, the District Court’s order abridges the freedom of the press in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” (Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Court, supra, 430 U.S. at pp. 311-312 [51 L.Ed.2d at pp. 358-359], fns. omitted.) In Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979) 443 U.S. 97 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 399 , 99 S.Ct. 2667 ], the Supreme Court concluded that a West Virginia statute making it a crime for a newspaper to publish the name of a minor charged as a juvenile offender without first obtaining written permission from the court violated the First and Fourteenth A

11994–1994
Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court green
cal · 1984
1 sentence

1986(Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, supra, 403 U.S. 29, 62 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 296, 322 ], conc. opn. of White, J.) As this court recently observed: “Fair and objective reporting may be a worthy ideal, but there is also room, within the protection of the First Amendment, for writing which seeks to expose wrongdoing and arouse righteous anger. . . .” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 259 .) The constitutional protections afforded the media under New York Times present a formidable barrier to public official plaintiffs.

11986–1986
Stanley v. Georgia green
scotus · 1969
2 sentences

1981The court noted (17 Cal.3d at pp. 51-52) the difference between Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 542 , 89 S.Ct. 1243 ] and the cases of Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) 413 U.S. 49 [ 37 L.Ed.2d 446 , 93 S.Ct. 2628 ] and People v. Luros (1971) 4 Cal.3d 84 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 480 P.2d 633 ], cert, den., 404 U.S. 824 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 52 , 92 S.Ct. 51 ], Stanley held unconstitutional a prosecution for the private possession of obscene films.

1981The court noted (17 Cal.3d at pp. 51-52) the difference between Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 542 , 89 S.Ct. 1243 ] and the cases of Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) 413 U.S. 49 [ 37 L.Ed.2d 446 , 93 S.Ct. 2628 ] and People v. Luros (1971) 4 Cal.3d 84 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 480 P.2d 633 ], cert, den., 404 U.S. 824 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 52 , 92 S.Ct. 51 ], Stanley held unconstitutional a prosecution for the private possession of obscene films.

11981–1981
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton green
scotus · 1973
2 sentences

1981The court noted (17 Cal.3d at pp. 51-52) the difference between Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 542 , 89 S.Ct. 1243 ] and the cases of Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) 413 U.S. 49 [ 37 L.Ed.2d 446 , 93 S.Ct. 2628 ] and People v. Luros (1971) 4 Cal.3d 84 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 480 P.2d 633 ], cert, den., 404 U.S. 824 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 52 , 92 S.Ct. 51 ], Stanley held unconstitutional a prosecution for the private possession of obscene films.

1981The court noted (17 Cal.3d at pp. 51-52) the difference between Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 542 , 89 S.Ct. 1243 ] and the cases of Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) 413 U.S. 49 [ 37 L.Ed.2d 446 , 93 S.Ct. 2628 ] and People v. Luros (1971) 4 Cal.3d 84 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 480 P.2d 633 ], cert, den., 404 U.S. 824 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 52 , 92 S.Ct. 51 ], Stanley held unconstitutional a prosecution for the private possession of obscene films.

11981–1981
People v. Luros green
cal · 1971
2 sentences

1981The court noted (17 Cal.3d at pp. 51-52) the difference between Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 542 , 89 S.Ct. 1243 ] and the cases of Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) 413 U.S. 49 [ 37 L.Ed.2d 446 , 93 S.Ct. 2628 ] and People v. Luros (1971) 4 Cal.3d 84 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 480 P.2d 633 ], cert, den., 404 U.S. 824 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 52 , 92 S.Ct. 51 ], Stanley held unconstitutional a prosecution for the private possession of obscene films.

1981The court noted (17 Cal.3d at pp. 51-52) the difference between Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 542 , 89 S.Ct. 1243 ] and the cases of Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) 413 U.S. 49 [ 37 L.Ed.2d 446 , 93 S.Ct. 2628 ] and People v. Luros (1971) 4 Cal.3d 84 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 480 P.2d 633 ], cert, den., 404 U.S. 824 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 52 , 92 S.Ct. 51 ], Stanley held unconstitutional a prosecution for the private possession of obscene films.

11981–1981
People Ex Rel. Busch v. Projection Room Theater green
cal · 1976
1 sentence

1981Busch held that such relief “would result in a full and pervasive prior restraint upon the freedom of speech and of the press in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” ( 17 Cal.3d at p. 58 .) The City’s argument that this language is merely dictum which does not bind this court is unpersuasive. 10 That obscene films are not, in and of themselves, public nuisances is recognized in Busch .

11981–1981
Richardson v. Wright green
scotus · 1971
1 sentence

1981The court noted (17 Cal.3d at pp. 51-52) the difference between Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 542 , 89 S.Ct. 1243 ] and the cases of Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) 413 U.S. 49 [ 37 L.Ed.2d 446 , 93 S.Ct. 2628 ] and People v. Luros (1971) 4 Cal.3d 84 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 480 P.2d 633 ], cert, den., 404 U.S. 824 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 52 , 92 S.Ct. 51 ], Stanley held unconstitutional a prosecution for the private possession of obscene films.

11981–1981
Beaudine v. United States green
scotus · 1971
1 sentence

1981The court noted (17 Cal.3d at pp. 51-52) the difference between Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 542 , 89 S.Ct. 1243 ] and the cases of Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) 413 U.S. 49 [ 37 L.Ed.2d 446 , 93 S.Ct. 2628 ] and People v. Luros (1971) 4 Cal.3d 84 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 480 P.2d 633 ], cert, den., 404 U.S. 824 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 52 , 92 S.Ct. 51 ], Stanley held unconstitutional a prosecution for the private possession of obscene films.

11981–1981
Tahl v. O'CONNOR green
casd · 1971
1 sentence

1978Although the opening statement by counsel at the close of the prosecutor’s opening statement is permitted by statute (§ 1093, subd. 3), since such statement commits the defense to the pursuit of certain conduct even before the prosecution’s evidence is fully known or submitted, the making of such statement is ill advised, particularly where, as here, the defense has a weak case (Tahl v. O’Connor (S.D.Cal. 1971) 336 F.Supp. 576, 582 ).

11978–1978
Flack v. Municipal Court for the Anaheim-Fullerton Judicial District green
cal · 1967
2 sentences

1976(See Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 711-715, 720 [ 75 L.Ed. 1357, 1365-1367, 1369 , 51 S.Ct. 625 ]; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) 372 U.S. 58, 70-71 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 584, 593-594 , 83 S.Ct. 631 ]; Freedman v. Maryland, supra, 380 U.S. 51, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 649, 653-654 ]; Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175, 180-181 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 325, 330-331 , 89 S.Ct. 347 ]; see and compare Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, 354 U.S. 436 ; see also Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 656, 664-665 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 320 , 488 P.2d 648 ]; Flack v. Municipal Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 981, 98

1976(See Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 711-715, 720 [ 75 L.Ed. 1357, 1365-1367, 1369 , 51 S.Ct. 625 ]; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) 372 U.S. 58, 70-71 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 584, 593-594 , 83 S.Ct. 631 ]; Freedman v. Maryland, supra, 380 U.S. 51, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 649, 653-654 ]; Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) 393 U.S. 175, 180-181 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 325, 330-331 , 89 S.Ct. 347 ]; see and compare Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, 354 U.S. 436 ; see also Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 656, 664-665 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 320 , 488 P.2d 648 ]; Flack v. Municipal Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 981, 98

11976–1976

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Civil Code § 3479 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 8 (1976–2016) NY 6 (1963–2024) PA 5 (1974–2022) NJ 4 (1987–2002) OH 4 (1976–2005) FL 4 (1945–1985) IL 4 (1984–1988) IA 3 (1969–2021) WY 2 (1980–1980) WA 2 (1983–2015) WV 2 (1994–2019) KS 2 (1994–2015) VT 2 (1981–1981)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check