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.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Travis v. County of Santa Cruzgreen1 sentence2025“Ruling on a facial challenge to a local ordinance, the court considers the text of the measure itself, not its application to any particular circumstances or individual.” (T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1107, 1117 ; accord, San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 463, 487 ; see Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 33 Cal.4th 757, 767 [facial challenge to an ordinance is “ ‘predicated on a theory that the mere enactment of the . . . ordinance worked a [constitutional violation]”].) “[A]lthough we may not in | 1 | 1 |
T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of S.F.green2 sentences2025“Ruling on a facial challenge to a local ordinance, the court considers the text of the measure itself, not its application to any particular circumstances or individual.” (T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1107, 1117 ; accord, San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 463, 487 ; see Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 33 Cal.4th 757, 767 [facial challenge to an ordinance is “ ‘predicated on a theory that the mere enactment of the . . . ordinance worked a [constitutional violation]”].) “[A]lthough we may not in 2025“Ruling on a facial challenge to a local ordinance, the court considers the text of the measure itself, not its application to any particular circumstances or individual.” (T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1107, 1117 ; accord, San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 463, 487 ; see Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 33 Cal.4th 757, 767 [facial challenge to an ordinance is “ ‘predicated on a theory that the mere enactment of the . . . ordinance worked a [constitutional violation]”].) “[A]lthough we may not in | 1 | 1 |
San Francisco Apartment Ass'n v. City & County of San Franciscogreen1 sentence2025“Ruling on a facial challenge to a local ordinance, the court considers the text of the measure itself, not its application to any particular circumstances or individual.” (T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1107, 1117 ; accord, San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 463, 487 ; see Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 33 Cal.4th 757, 767 [facial challenge to an ordinance is “ ‘predicated on a theory that the mere enactment of the . . . ordinance worked a [constitutional violation]”].) “[A]lthough we may not in | 1 | 1 |
Kleppe v. New Mexicogreen2 sentences2010(California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., supra, 480 U.S. at p. 580 .) In concluding that there was no preemption, the Supreme Court cited Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) 426 U.S. 529, 543 [ 49 L.Ed.2d 34 , 96 S.Ct. 2285 ], for the proposition that “ ‘the State is free to enforce its criminal and civil laws’ on federal land so long as those laws do not conflict with federal law.” (California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., supra, at p. 580.) The Supreme Court noted that while application of state law may be preempted either by (i) federal law occupying the entire field, or (ii) a conflic 2010(California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., supra, 480 U.S. at p. 580 .) In concluding that there was no preemption, the Supreme Court cited Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) 426 U.S. 529, 543 [ 49 L.Ed.2d 34 , 96 S.Ct. 2285 ], for the proposition that “ ‘the State is free to enforce its criminal and civil laws’ on federal land so long as those laws do not conflict with federal law.” (California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., supra, at p. 580.) The Supreme Court noted that while application of state law may be preempted either by (i) federal law occupying the entire field, or (ii) a conflic | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon
green
2 sentences2017(See Foreman , supra , 3 Cal.3d at p. 881 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 479 P.2d 362 .) The punitive damages award was just under four times the compensatory damages award (350,000/87,894 = 3.982). 2017(See Foreman , supra , 3 Cal.3d at p. 881 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 479 P.2d 362 .) The punitive damages award was just under four times the compensatory damages award (350,000/87,894 = 3.982). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
California Teachers Assn. v. State
green
1 sentence2025“Ruling on a facial challenge to a local ordinance, the court considers the text of the measure itself, not its application to any particular circumstances or individual.” (T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1107, 1117 ; accord, San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 463, 487 ; see Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 33 Cal.4th 757, 767 [facial challenge to an ordinance is “ ‘predicated on a theory that the mere enactment of the . . . ordinance worked a [constitutional violation]”].) “[A]lthough we may not in | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Coyne v. City and County of San Francisco
green
1 sentence2025“Ruling on a facial challenge to a local ordinance, the court considers the text of the measure itself, not its application to any particular circumstances or individual.” (T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1107, 1117 ; accord, San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 463, 487 ; see Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 33 Cal.4th 757, 767 [facial challenge to an ordinance is “ ‘predicated on a theory that the mere enactment of the . . . ordinance worked a [constitutional violation]”].) “[A]lthough we may not in | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Jun Wai Tom v. City & County of San Francisco
green
1 sentence2025“Ruling on a facial challenge to a local ordinance, the court considers the text of the measure itself, not its application to any particular circumstances or individual.” (T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1107, 1117 ; accord, San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 463, 487 ; see Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 33 Cal.4th 757, 767 [facial challenge to an ordinance is “ ‘predicated on a theory that the mere enactment of the . . . ordinance worked a [constitutional violation]”].) “[A]lthough we may not in | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Welch
green
1 sentence2018(See Welch, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 235 ; Sheena K., at pp. 887-889.) Insofar as Moore is asserting either condition is overbroad based solely on the crimes the jury convicted him of, without reference to any facts in the record, we reject that position as well. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Bauer
green
1 sentence2014Analysis In claiming neither the juvenile court nor the probation officer should have the ability to restrict his choice of residence, the minor relies primarily on People v. Bauer (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 937 (Bauer). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
County of Sonoma v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2013Standard of Review Because CBIA's action is a purely facial challenge, we address "only the text of the measure itself, not its application to the particular circumstances of an individual." (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1084 ; County of Sonoma v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 322, 337 .) The parties have posited different tests for facial invalidity, but we will apply the more lenient standard articulated in San Remo. 5 The court also cited the takings clauses of the state and federal Constitutions (U.S. Const., art. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Tobe v. City of Santa Ana
green
1 sentence2013Standard of Review Because CBIA's action is a purely facial challenge, we address "only the text of the measure itself, not its application to the particular circumstances of an individual." (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1084 ; County of Sonoma v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 322, 337 .) The parties have posited different tests for facial invalidity, but we will apply the more lenient standard articulated in San Remo. 5 The court also cited the takings clauses of the state and federal Constitutions (U.S. Const., art. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co.
green
1 sentence2010(California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., supra, 480 U.S. at p. 580 .) In concluding that there was no preemption, the Supreme Court cited Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) 426 U.S. 529, 543 [ 49 L.Ed.2d 34 , 96 S.Ct. 2285 ], for the proposition that “ ‘the State is free to enforce its criminal and civil laws’ on federal land so long as those laws do not conflict with federal law.” (California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., supra, at p. 580.) The Supreme Court noted that while application of state law may be preempted either by (i) federal law occupying the entire field, or (ii) a conflic | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.