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.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2016 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
L.A. All. for Survival v. City of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2007I, § 2, subd. (a).) The California Supreme Court "and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment." ( Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 352, 366 , 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 993 P.2d 334 .) Notwithstanding the broader reach of our state's free speech guaranty, it is apparent that our Supreme Court consistently looks to federal precedent in evaluating cases brought under the state provision. 2007I, § 2, subd. (a).) The California Supreme Court "and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment." ( Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 352, 366 , 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 993 P.2d 334 .) Notwithstanding the broader reach of our state's free speech guaranty, it is apparent that our Supreme Court consistently looks to federal precedent in evaluating cases brought under the state provision. | 1 | 3 |
Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Centergreen2 sentences2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political 2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political | 1 | 2 |
San Leandro Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Board of the San Leandro Unified School Districtgreen2 sentences2016As defendants point out, the Legislature saw fit to include the free speech protections of both the state and federal Constitutions in the anti-SLAPP statute, and “the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment.” (San Leandro Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of San Leandro Unified School Dist. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 822, 842 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 164 , 209 P.3d 73 ]; see § 425.16(b)(1).) The Court of Appeal gave no consideration to defendants’ rights under our state Constitution. 2016As defendants point out, the Legislature saw fit to include the free speech protections of both the state and federal Constitutions in the anti-SLAPP statute, and “the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment.” (San Leandro Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of San Leandro Unified School Dist. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 822, 842 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 164 , 209 P.3d 73 ]; see § 425.16(b)(1).) The Court of Appeal gave no consideration to defendants’ rights under our state Constitution. | 1 | 1 |
Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen2 sentences2009(See, e.g., Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 352, 366-367 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 993 P.2d 334 ], and cases cited therein.) The liberty of speech clause has been interpreted more broadly than the First Amendment in several areas, including recognizing privately owned shopping centers as public forums subject to free speech protections (Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Bd. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 850, 862-863 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 288 , 172 P.3d 742 ]) and according greater protection to certain types of commercial speech (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. 2009(See, e.g., Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 352, 366-367 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 993 P.2d 334 ], and cases cited therein.) The liberty of speech clause has been interpreted more broadly than the First Amendment in several areas, including recognizing privately owned shopping centers as public forums subject to free speech protections (Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Bd. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 850, 862-863 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 288 , 172 P.3d 742 ]) and according greater protection to certain types of commercial speech (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. | 1 | 1 |
Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Kawamuragreen2 sentences2009(See, e.g., Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 352, 366-367 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 993 P.2d 334 ], and cases cited therein.) The liberty of speech clause has been interpreted more broadly than the First Amendment in several areas, including recognizing privately owned shopping centers as public forums subject to free speech protections (Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Bd. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 850, 862-863 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 288 , 172 P.3d 742 ]) and according greater protection to certain types of commercial speech (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. 2009(See, e.g., Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 352, 366-367 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 993 P.2d 334 ], and cases cited therein.) The liberty of speech clause has been interpreted more broadly than the First Amendment in several areas, including recognizing privately owned shopping centers as public forums subject to free speech protections (Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Bd. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 850, 862-863 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 288 , 172 P.3d 742 ]) and according greater protection to certain types of commercial speech (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. | 1 | 1 |
People Ex Rel. Gallo v. Acunagreen2 sentences2003(See, e.g., Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090 , XXXX-XXXX, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 277 , 929 P.2d 596 ; Planned Parenthood II, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 1019-1025, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 898 P.2d 402 .) Likewise, we have refused to apply prior restraint analysis to content-neutral injunctions directed at prior unlawful conduct. 2003(See, e.g., Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090 , XXXX-XXXX, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 277 , 929 P.2d 596 ; Planned Parenthood II, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 1019-1025, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 898 P.2d 402 .) Likewise, we have refused to apply prior restraint analysis to content-neutral injunctions directed at prior unlawful conduct. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Glazegreen2 sentences2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political 2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political 2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co.green2 sentences2000(E.g., Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745-746 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ] [applying 1st Amend, standards in defamation action under art. 2000(E.g., Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745-746 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ] [applying 1st Amend, standards in defamation action under art. | 1 | 1 |
Spiritual Psychic Science Church of Truth, Inc. v. City of Azusagreen2 sentences2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political 2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political | 1 | 1 |
San Diego Unified Port v. U.S. Citizens Patrolgreen2 sentences2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political 2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political | 1 | 1 |
Gonzales v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political 2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political | 1 | 1 |
Allred v. Shawleygreen2 sentences2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political 2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political | 1 | 1 |
Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commissiongreen2 sentences2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political 2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political | 1 | 1 |
Dailey v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political 2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. v. Williams
green
2 sentences2003(See, e.g., Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090 , XXXX-XXXX, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 277 , 929 P.2d 596 ; Planned Parenthood II, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 1019-1025, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 898 P.2d 402 .) Likewise, we have refused to apply prior restraint analysis to content-neutral injunctions directed at prior unlawful conduct. 2003(See, e.g., Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090 , XXXX-XXXX, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 277 , 929 P.2d 596 ; Planned Parenthood II, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 1019-1025, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 898 P.2d 402 .) Likewise, we have refused to apply prior restraint analysis to content-neutral injunctions directed at prior unlawful conduct. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. Kokinda
green
1 sentence2000Defendants, on the other hand, relying heavily upon the reasoning of a line of United States Supreme Court decisions ( Lee, supra, 505 U.S. 672 ; Kokinda, supra, 497 U.S. 720 ; Heffron, supra, 452 U.S. 640 ), assert that legislation like the Los Angeles ordinance here at issue should be designated content neutral, and hence properly may be reviewed under the California liberty of speech clause by intermediate scrutiny under time, place, and manner analysis. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
New National Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission
neutral
2 sentences2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political 2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 [ 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ]; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 [ 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ]; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 371 I11. 472 [ 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 , 127 A.L.R. 957 ].) 11 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Village of South Holland v. Stein
green
1 sentence2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 373 Ill. 472 , 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 .) [11] *10 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 97-98 , 44 P. 458 [the liberty of speech clause "is the broader, and gives ... greater liberty" than the First Amendment]; Griset v. Fair Political | 1 | 2000–2000 |
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee
green
1 sentence2000Defendants, on the other hand, relying heavily upon the reasoning of a line of United States Supreme Court decisions ( Lee, supra, 505 U.S. 672 ; Kokinda, supra, 497 U.S. 720 ; Heffron, supra, 452 U.S. 640 ), assert that legislation like the Los Angeles ordinance here at issue should be designated content neutral, and hence properly may be reviewed under the California liberty of speech clause by intermediate scrutiny under time, place, and manner analysis. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
U.C. Nuclear Weapons Labs Conversion Project v. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
green
2 sentences2000Nuclear Weapons, supra, 154 Cal.App.3d 1157, 1164 , 201 Cal.Rptr. 837 ; Prisoners Union v. Department of Corrections (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 930, 938 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 634 .) Merely because our provision is worded more expansively and has been interpreted as more protective than the First Amendment, however, does not mean that it is broader than the First Amendment in all its applications. [12] In this regard, defendants acknowledge that the California Constitution is independent and that federal decisions interpreting the First Amendment are not controlling. 2000Nuclear Weapons, supra, 154 Cal.App.3d 1157, 1164 , 201 Cal.Rptr. 837 ; Prisoners Union v. Department of Corrections (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 930, 938 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 634 .) Merely because our provision is worded more expansively and has been interpreted as more protective than the First Amendment, however, does not mean that it is broader than the First Amendment in all its applications. [12] In this regard, defendants acknowledge that the California Constitution is independent and that federal decisions interpreting the First Amendment are not controlling. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Prisoners Union v. Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2000Nuclear Weapons, supra, 154 Cal.App.3d 1157, 1164 , 201 Cal.Rptr. 837 ; Prisoners Union v. Department of Corrections (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 930, 938 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 634 .) Merely because our provision is worded more expansively and has been interpreted as more protective than the First Amendment, however, does not mean that it is broader than the First Amendment in all its applications. [12] In this regard, defendants acknowledge that the California Constitution is independent and that federal decisions interpreting the First Amendment are not controlling. 2000Nuclear Weapons, supra, 154 Cal.App.3d 1157, 1164 , 201 Cal.Rptr. 837 ; Prisoners Union v. Department of Corrections (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 930, 938 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 634 .) Merely because our provision is worded more expansively and has been interpreted as more protective than the First Amendment, however, does not mean that it is broader than the First Amendment in all its applications. [12] In this regard, defendants acknowledge that the California Constitution is independent and that federal decisions interpreting the First Amendment are not controlling. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Schmid
green
2 sentences2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 [ 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ]; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 [ 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ]; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 371 I11. 472 [ 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 , 127 A.L.R. 957 ].) 11 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. 2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 [ 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ]; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 [ 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ]; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 371 I11. 472 [ 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 , 127 A.L.R. 957 ].) 11 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Alderwood Associates v. Washington Environmental Council
green
2 sentences2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 [ 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ]; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 [ 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ]; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 371 I11. 472 [ 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 , 127 A.L.R. 957 ].) 11 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. 2000Council (1981) 96 Wash.2d 230 [ 635 P.2d 108, 115-116 ]; State v. Schmid (1980) 84 N.J. 535 [ 423 A.2d 615, 626-627 ]; Village of South Holland v. Stein (1940) 371 I11. 472 [ 26 N.E.2d 868, 871 , 127 A.L.R. 957 ].) 11 This court, and the California Courts of Appeal, likewise have indicated that the California liberty of speech clause is broader and more protective than the free speech clause of the First Amendment. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Eastwood Mall, Inc. v. Slanco
green
2 sentences2000(E.g., Eastwood Mall, Inc. v. Slanco (1994) 68 Ohio St.3d 221 [ 626 N.E.2d 59, 61 ].) In some areas we have found that the protection afforded by the California liberty of speech clause is coterminous with that provided by the federal Constitution. 2000(E.g., Eastwood Mall, Inc. v. Slanco (1994) 68 Ohio St.3d 221 [ 626 N.E.2d 59, 61 ].) In some areas we have found that the protection afforded by the California liberty of speech clause is coterminous with that provided by the federal Constitution. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000Defendants, on the other hand, relying heavily upon the reasoning of a line of United States Supreme Court decisions ( Lee, supra, 505 U.S. 672 ; Kokinda, supra, 497 U.S. 720 ; Heffron, supra, 452 U.S. 640 ), assert that legislation like the Los Angeles ordinance here at issue should be designated content neutral, and hence properly may be reviewed under the California liberty of speech clause by intermediate scrutiny under time, place, and manner analysis. | 1 | 2000–2000 |