6 California opinions name it 3 courts 1960–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Garner v. Louisianagreen2 sentences1970(See Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 541 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 476 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 559, 569-571 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 487, 495-496 , 85 S.Ct. 476 ]; Garner v. Louisiana (1961) 368 U.S. 157, 170, 171 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 207, 217, 218 , 82 S.Ct. 248 ]; Thompson v. Louisville (1960) 362 U.S. 199, 205 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 654, 658 , 80 S.Ct. 624 , 80 A.L.R.2d 1355 ]; Gaddis v. State (1920) 105 Neb. 303 [ 180 N.W. 590 ].) In addition, we note that criminal provisions similar to section 403 have generally been held inapplicable to one who breaches a meeting rule in the good faith belief t 1970(See Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 541 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 476 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 559, 569-571 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 487, 495-496 , 85 S.Ct. 476 ]; Garner v. Louisiana (1961) 368 U.S. 157, 170, 171 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 207, 217, 218 , 82 S.Ct. 248 ]; Thompson v. Louisville (1960) 362 U.S. 199, 205 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 654, 658 , 80 S.Ct. 624 , 80 A.L.R.2d 1355 ]; Gaddis v. State (1920) 105 Neb. 303 [ 180 N.W. 590 ].) In addition, we note that criminal provisions similar to section 403 have generally been held inapplicable to one who breaches a meeting rule in the good faith belief t | 2 | 2 |
Cox v. Louisianagreen2 sentences1970(See Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 541 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 476 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 559, 569-571 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 487, 495-496 , 85 S.Ct. 476 ]; Garner v. Louisiana (1961) 368 U.S. 157, 170, 171 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 207, 217, 218 , 82 S.Ct. 248 ]; Thompson v. Louisville (1960) 362 U.S. 199, 205 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 654, 658 , 80 S.Ct. 624 , 80 A.L.R.2d 1355 ]; Gaddis v. State (1920) 105 Neb. 303 [ 180 N.W. 590 ].) In addition, we note that criminal provisions similar to section 403 have generally been held inapplicable to one who breaches a meeting rule in the good faith belief t 1970(See Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 541 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 476 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 559, 569-571 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 487, 495-496 , 85 S.Ct. 476 ]; Garner v. Louisiana (1961) 368 U.S. 157, 170, 171 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 207, 217, 218 , 82 S.Ct. 248 ]; Thompson v. Louisville (1960) 362 U.S. 199, 205 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 654, 658 , 80 S.Ct. 624 , 80 A.L.R.2d 1355 ]; Gaddis v. State (1920) 105 Neb. 303 [ 180 N.W. 590 ].) In addition, we note that criminal provisions similar to section 403 have generally been held inapplicable to one who breaches a meeting rule in the good faith belief t | 2 | 2 |
Cox v. Louisianagreen2 sentences1970(See Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 541 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 476 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 559, 569-571 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 487, 495-496 , 85 S.Ct. 476 ]; Garner v. Louisiana (1961) 368 U.S. 157, 170, 171 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 207, 217, 218 , 82 S.Ct. 248 ]; Thompson v. Louisville (1960) 362 U.S. 199, 205 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 654, 658 , 80 S.Ct. 624 , 80 A.L.R.2d 1355 ]; Gaddis v. State (1920) 105 Neb. 303 [ 180 N.W. 590 ].) In addition, we note that criminal provisions similar to section 403 have generally been held inapplicable to one who breaches a meeting rule in the good faith belief t 1970(See Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 541 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 476 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 559, 569-571 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 487, 495-496 , 85 S.Ct. 476 ]; Garner v. Louisiana (1961) 368 U.S. 157, 170, 171 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 207, 217, 218 , 82 S.Ct. 248 ]; Thompson v. Louisville (1960) 362 U.S. 199, 205 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 654, 658 , 80 S.Ct. 624 , 80 A.L.R.2d 1355 ]; Gaddis v. State (1920) 105 Neb. 303 [ 180 N.W. 590 ].) In addition, we note that criminal provisions similar to section 403 have generally been held inapplicable to one who breaches a meeting rule in the good faith belief t | 2 | 2 |
Thompson v. City of Louisvillegreen2 sentences1970(See Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 541 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 476 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 559, 569-571 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 487, 495-496 , 85 S.Ct. 476 ]; Garner v. Louisiana (1961) 368 U.S. 157, 170, 171 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 207, 217, 218 , 82 S.Ct. 248 ]; Thompson v. Louisville (1960) 362 U.S. 199, 205 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 654, 658 , 80 S.Ct. 624 , 80 A.L.R.2d 1355 ]; Gaddis v. State (1920) 105 Neb. 303 [ 180 N.W. 590 ].) In addition, we note that criminal provisions similar to section 403 have generally been held inapplicable to one who breaches a meeting rule in the good faith belief t 1970(See Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 541 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 476 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 559, 569-571 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 487, 495-496 , 85 S.Ct. 476 ]; Garner v. Louisiana (1961) 368 U.S. 157, 170, 171 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 207, 217, 218 , 82 S.Ct. 248 ]; Thompson v. Louisville (1960) 362 U.S. 199, 205 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 654, 658 , 80 S.Ct. 624 , 80 A.L.R.2d 1355 ]; Gaddis v. State (1920) 105 Neb. 303 [ 180 N.W. 590 ].) In addition, we note that criminal provisions similar to section 403 have generally been held inapplicable to one who breaches a meeting rule in the good faith belief t | 2 | 2 |
Paxson v. Board of Education of School District No. 87green2 sentences1999Compare Paxson v. Board of Educ. (1995) 276 III.App.3d 912, 923-924 [213 III.Dec. 288, 658 N.E.2d 1309, 1316 ] (Dealing with a similar open meeting act in Illinois authorizing the nullification and voidance of an action taken by a public body at a meeting in violation of the act’s requirements, but only if a person commences an action therefor within 45 days from the date of the meeting in question; “[W]e . . . note” that the nullification and voidance of “governmental actions is indeed a powerful and drastic remedy that carries with it the enormous potential for upsetting the stability of gov 1999Group v. Superior Court (1998) 19 Cal.4th 332, 348 , 79 Cal. Rptr.2d 308 , 965 P.2d 1178 .) Be that as it may, there is no indication that any assumption or assertion in these decisions that section 54960(a) possesses a past orientation gave rise to a belief on the part of the Legislature that section 11130(a) possesses one as well. [7] Compare Paxson v. Board of Education (1995) 276 Ill.App.3d 912, 923-924 , 213 Ill.Dec. 288 , 658 N.E.2d 1309 (Dealing with a similar open meeting act in Illinois authorizing the nullification and voidance of an action taken by a public body at a meeting in viol | 1 | 1 |
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valleygreen2 sentences1999Consequently, we find that the restriction placed on the remedy” in the form of a “very short and definite period of time in which to bring” an “action” is “more than reasonable.”); City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley (1989) 163 Ariz. 608, 614 [ 790 P.2d 263 ], decision affirmed in its entirety and opinion vacated in part not pertinent here (1990) 166 Ariz. 480 [ 803 P.2d 891 ] (characterizing as a “heavy penalty” the nullification and voidance of an action taken by a public body at a meeting in violation of the requirements of a similar open meeting act in Arizona). 1999Consequently, we find that the restriction placed on the remedy” in the form of a “very short and definite period of time in which to bring” an “action” is “more than reasonable.”); City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley (1989) 163 Ariz. 608, 614 [ 790 P.2d 263 ], decision affirmed in its entirety and opinion vacated in part not pertinent here (1990) 166 Ariz. 480 [ 803 P.2d 891 ] (characterizing as a “heavy penalty” the nullification and voidance of an action taken by a public body at a meeting in violation of the requirements of a similar open meeting act in Arizona). | 1 | 1 |
Kennedy v. Powellgreen1 sentence1999Ct. App. 1981) 401 So.2d 453, 457 (concluding that the 60-day statute of limitations of a similar open meeting act in Louisiana authorizing the nullification and voidance of an action taken by a public body in violation of the act's requirements did not allow any extension of time, even against the possibility that "public officials" might "frustrate" the act's "purpose ... by concealing action taken in secret for a period of sixty days": "We think the legislature felt the need to create certainty in the affairs of a [public] body ... outweighed any danger that public officials would intention | 1 | 1 |
Presbyterian Church in US v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Churchgreen2 sentences1970Courts have reasoned that the Legislature could not have intended that disputes about meeting or organizational rules or the power or authority of a chairman or other official be resolved by means of a criminal prosecution. ( Woodall v. State (1908) 4 Ga. App. 783 [ 62 S.E. 485, 487 ]; State v. Jacobs (1889) 103 N.C. 397 [ 9 S.E. 404, 405 ]; Morris v. State (1888) 84 Ala. 457 [ 4 So. 628 , 629-630]; compare Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church (1969) 393 U.S. 440 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 658 , 89 S.Ct. 601 ]; State v. Linkhaw (1873) 69 N.C. 214 [ 12 Am.Rep. 645 ].) [13] This general requirement for notifica 1970Courts have reasoned that the Legislature could not have intended that disputes about meeting or organizational rules or the power or authority of a chairman or other official be resolved by means of a criminal prosecution. ( Woodall v. State (1908) 4 Ga. App. 783 [ 62 S.E. 485, 487 ]; State v. Jacobs (1889) 103 N.C. 397 [ 9 S.E. 404, 405 ]; Morris v. State (1888) 84 Ala. 457 [ 4 So. 628 , 629-630]; compare Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church (1969) 393 U.S. 440 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 658 , 89 S.Ct. 601 ]; State v. Linkhaw (1873) 69 N.C. 214 [ 12 Am.Rep. 645 ].) [13] This general requirement for notifica | 1 | 1 |
McLain v. Planning Commissiongreen2 sentences1960(McLain v. Planning Commission, 156 Cal.App.2d 161, 165 [ 319 P.2d 24 ]; DeLuca v. Board of Supervisors, 134 Cal.App.2d 606, 609 [ 286 P.2d 395 ], and eases cited.) DeWitt et al. contend that these cases are inapplicable because in these cases there was no objection made to holding the hearings, whereas in the instant ease counsel for DeWitt et al. appeared at the hearing and specifically objected to its being held at that time. 1960(McLain v. Planning Commission, 156 Cal.App.2d 161, 165 [ 319 P.2d 24 ]; DeLuca v. Board of Supervisors, 134 Cal.App.2d 606, 609 [ 286 P.2d 395 ], and eases cited.) DeWitt et al. contend that these cases are inapplicable because in these cases there was no objection made to holding the hearings, whereas in the instant ease counsel for DeWitt et al. appeared at the hearing and specifically objected to its being held at that time. | 1 | 1 |
De Luca v. Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles Countygreen2 sentences1960(McLain v. Planning Commission, 156 Cal.App.2d 161, 165 [ 319 P.2d 24 ]; DeLuca v. Board of Supervisors, 134 Cal.App.2d 606, 609 [ 286 P.2d 395 ], and eases cited.) DeWitt et al. contend that these cases are inapplicable because in these cases there was no objection made to holding the hearings, whereas in the instant ease counsel for DeWitt et al. appeared at the hearing and specifically objected to its being held at that time. 1960(McLain v. Planning Commission, 156 Cal.App.2d 161, 165 [ 319 P.2d 24 ]; DeLuca v. Board of Supervisors, 134 Cal.App.2d 606, 609 [ 286 P.2d 395 ], and eases cited.) DeWitt et al. contend that these cases are inapplicable because in these cases there was no objection made to holding the hearings, whereas in the instant ease counsel for DeWitt et al. appeared at the hearing and specifically objected to its being held at that time. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gaddis v. State
green
2 sentences1970(See Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 541 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 476 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 559, 569-571 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 487, 495-496 , 85 S.Ct. 476 ]; Garner v. Louisiana (1961) 368 U.S. 157, 170, 171 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 207, 217, 218 , 82 S.Ct. 248 ]; Thompson v. Louisville (1960) 362 U.S. 199, 205 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 654, 658 , 80 S.Ct. 624 , 80 A.L.R.2d 1355 ]; Gaddis v. State (1920) 105 Neb. 303 [ 180 N.W. 590 ].) In addition, we note that criminal provisions similar to section 403 have generally been held inapplicable to one who breaches a meeting rule in the good faith belief t 1970(See Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 541 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 476 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 559, 569-571 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 487, 495-496 , 85 S.Ct. 476 ]; Garner v. Louisiana (1961) 368 U.S. 157, 170, 171 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 207, 217, 218 , 82 S.Ct. 248 ]; Thompson v. Louisville (1960) 362 U.S. 199, 205 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 654, 658 , 80 S.Ct. 624 , 80 A.L.R.2d 1355 ]; Gaddis v. State (1920) 105 Neb. 303 [ 180 N.W. 590 ].) In addition, we note that criminal provisions similar to section 403 have generally been held inapplicable to one who breaches a meeting rule in the good faith belief t | 2 | 1970–1970 |
City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
green
1 sentence2014(City of Coachella, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 1287 .) Specifically, the court determined that the public hearing process did not constitute an adequate administrative remedy because the “public hearings held by the [c]ommission with regard to the adoption of the TALUP did not require that the [c]ommission do anything in response to submissions or testimony received by it incident to those hearings.” (Ibid.) Similarly, the commission’s meeting requirement also failed to establish an adequate administrative remedy: “While it is true that this rule does contain a mandatory provision requiring t | 1 | 2014–2014 |
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley
green
2 sentences1999Consequently, we find that the restriction placed on the remedy” in the form of a “very short and definite period of time in which to bring” an “action” is “more than reasonable.”); City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley (1989) 163 Ariz. 608, 614 [ 790 P.2d 263 ], decision affirmed in its entirety and opinion vacated in part not pertinent here (1990) 166 Ariz. 480 [ 803 P.2d 891 ] (characterizing as a “heavy penalty” the nullification and voidance of an action taken by a public body at a meeting in violation of the requirements of a similar open meeting act in Arizona). 1999Consequently, we find that the restriction placed on the remedy” in the form of a “very short and definite period of time in which to bring” an “action” is “more than reasonable.”); City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley (1989) 163 Ariz. 608, 614 [ 790 P.2d 263 ], decision affirmed in its entirety and opinion vacated in part not pertinent here (1990) 166 Ariz. 480 [ 803 P.2d 891 ] (characterizing as a “heavy penalty” the nullification and voidance of an action taken by a public body at a meeting in violation of the requirements of a similar open meeting act in Arizona). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Mercury Insurance Group v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1999Group v. Superior Court (1998) 19 Cal.4th 332, 348 , 79 Cal. Rptr.2d 308 , 965 P.2d 1178 .) Be that as it may, there is no indication that any assumption or assertion in these decisions that section 54960(a) possesses a past orientation gave rise to a belief on the part of the Legislature that section 11130(a) possesses one as well. [7] Compare Paxson v. Board of Education (1995) 276 Ill.App.3d 912, 923-924 , 213 Ill.Dec. 288 , 658 N.E.2d 1309 (Dealing with a similar open meeting act in Illinois authorizing the nullification and voidance of an action taken by a public body at a meeting in viol 1999Group v. Superior Court (1998) 19 Cal.4th 332, 348 , 79 Cal. Rptr.2d 308 , 965 P.2d 1178 .) Be that as it may, there is no indication that any assumption or assertion in these decisions that section 54960(a) possesses a past orientation gave rise to a belief on the part of the Legislature that section 11130(a) possesses one as well. [7] Compare Paxson v. Board of Education (1995) 276 Ill.App.3d 912, 923-924 , 213 Ill.Dec. 288 , 658 N.E.2d 1309 (Dealing with a similar open meeting act in Illinois authorizing the nullification and voidance of an action taken by a public body at a meeting in viol | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Abbott v. City of Los Angeles
green
1 sentence1993(See In re Lane (1962) 58 Cal.2d 99, 102 ; Abbott v. City of Los Angeles (1960) 53 Cal.2d 674, 681 .) The Act specifically provides that a "member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of a legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of [the Act], with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor." (§ 54959.) It has also been held that the Act may be enforced by use of the general criminal sanction set forth in section 1222. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
In Re Lane
green
1 sentence1993(See In re Lane (1962) 58 Cal.2d 99, 102 ; Abbott v. City of Los Angeles (1960) 53 Cal.2d 674, 681 .) The Act specifically provides that a "member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of a legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of [the Act], with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor." (§ 54959.) It has also been held that the Act may be enforced by use of the general criminal sanction set forth in section 1222. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Adler v. City Council
green
1 sentence1993(Adler v. City Council (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 763, 774-775 .) Section 1222 provides: "Every willful omission to perform any duty enjoined by law upon any public officer, or person holding any public trust or employment, where no special provision is made for the punishment of such delinquency, is punishable as a misdemeanor." In view of these specific and general criminal sanctions enacted by the Legislature, we believe that a local misdemeanor ordinance to further enforce the Act's provisions would be in conflict with state legislation either by duplicating it or being supplemental thereto in | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Woodall v. State
neutral
2 sentences1970Courts have reasoned that the Legislature could not have intended that disputes about meeting or organizational rules or the power or authority of a chairman or other official be resolved by means of a criminal prosecution. ( Woodall v. State (1908) 4 Ga. App. 783 [ 62 S.E. 485, 487 ]; State v. Jacobs (1889) 103 N.C. 397 [ 9 S.E. 404, 405 ]; Morris v. State (1888) 84 Ala. 457 [ 4 So. 628 , 629-630]; compare Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church (1969) 393 U.S. 440 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 658 , 89 S.Ct. 601 ]; State v. Linkhaw (1873) 69 N.C. 214 [ 12 Am.Rep. 645 ].) [13] This general requirement for notifica 1970Courts have reasoned that the Legislature could not have intended that disputes about meeting or organizational rules or the power or authority of a chairman or other official be resolved by means of a criminal prosecution. ( Woodall v. State (1908) 4 Ga. App. 783 [ 62 S.E. 485, 487 ]; State v. Jacobs (1889) 103 N.C. 397 [ 9 S.E. 404, 405 ]; Morris v. State (1888) 84 Ala. 457 [ 4 So. 628 , 629-630]; compare Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church (1969) 393 U.S. 440 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 658 , 89 S.Ct. 601 ]; State v. Linkhaw (1873) 69 N.C. 214 [ 12 Am.Rep. 645 ].) [13] This general requirement for notifica | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Morris v. State
neutral
1 sentence1970Courts have reasoned that the Legislature could not have intended that disputes about meeting or organizational rules or the power or authority of a chairman or other official be resolved by means of a criminal prosecution. ( Woodall v. State (1908) 4 Ga. App. 783 [ 62 S.E. 485, 487 ]; State v. Jacobs (1889) 103 N.C. 397 [ 9 S.E. 404, 405 ]; Morris v. State (1888) 84 Ala. 457 [ 4 So. 628 , 629-630]; compare Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church (1969) 393 U.S. 440 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 658 , 89 S.Ct. 601 ]; State v. Linkhaw (1873) 69 N.C. 214 [ 12 Am.Rep. 645 ].) [13] This general requirement for notifica | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. . Linkhaw
green
1 sentence1970Courts have reasoned that the Legislature could not have intended that disputes about meeting or organizational rules or the power or authority of a chairman or other official be resolved by means of a criminal prosecution. ( Woodall v. State (1908) 4 Ga. App. 783 [ 62 S.E. 485, 487 ]; State v. Jacobs (1889) 103 N.C. 397 [ 9 S.E. 404, 405 ]; Morris v. State (1888) 84 Ala. 457 [ 4 So. 628 , 629-630]; compare Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church (1969) 393 U.S. 440 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 658 , 89 S.Ct. 601 ]; State v. Linkhaw (1873) 69 N.C. 214 [ 12 Am.Rep. 645 ].) [13] This general requirement for notifica | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. . Jacobs
neutral
2 sentences1970Courts have reasoned that the Legislature could not have intended that disputes about meeting or organizational rules or the power or authority of a chairman or other official be resolved by means of a criminal prosecution. ( Woodall v. State (1908) 4 Ga. App. 783 [ 62 S.E. 485, 487 ]; State v. Jacobs (1889) 103 N.C. 397 [ 9 S.E. 404, 405 ]; Morris v. State (1888) 84 Ala. 457 [ 4 So. 628 , 629-630]; compare Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church (1969) 393 U.S. 440 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 658 , 89 S.Ct. 601 ]; State v. Linkhaw (1873) 69 N.C. 214 [ 12 Am.Rep. 645 ].) [13] This general requirement for notifica 1970Courts have reasoned that the Legislature could not have intended that disputes about meeting or organizational rules or the power or authority of a chairman or other official be resolved by means of a criminal prosecution. ( Woodall v. State (1908) 4 Ga. App. 783 [ 62 S.E. 485, 487 ]; State v. Jacobs (1889) 103 N.C. 397 [ 9 S.E. 404, 405 ]; Morris v. State (1888) 84 Ala. 457 [ 4 So. 628 , 629-630]; compare Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church (1969) 393 U.S. 440 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 658 , 89 S.Ct. 601 ]; State v. Linkhaw (1873) 69 N.C. 214 [ 12 Am.Rep. 645 ].) [13] This general requirement for notifica | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.