5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schmitz v. Youngergreen2 sentences2002These flaws are fatal." ( Id. at pp. 360-361, 245 Cal.Rptr. 916 .) Finally, in addition to the test discussed above, an initiative would pass muster under the single-subject rule if it were "functionally related in furtherance of a common underlying purpose." ( Schmitz v. Younger, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 100 , 145 Cal.Rptr. 517 , 577 P.2d 652 (dis. opn. of Manuel, J.).) In Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch, Dist, v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 230-231 , 149 Cal.Rptr. 239 , 583 P.2d 1281 , in which Proposition 13 was upheld as constitutional, this test was employed along wit 2002These flaws are fatal." ( Id. at pp. 360-361, 245 Cal.Rptr. 916 .) Finally, in addition to the test discussed above, an initiative would pass muster under the single-subject rule if it were "functionally related in furtherance of a common underlying purpose." ( Schmitz v. Younger, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 100 , 145 Cal.Rptr. 517 , 577 P.2d 652 (dis. opn. of Manuel, J.).) In Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch, Dist, v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 230-231 , 149 Cal.Rptr. 239 , 583 P.2d 1281 , in which Proposition 13 was upheld as constitutional, this test was employed along wit | 1 | 3 |
AMADOR VALLEY JT. UN. HIGH SCH. v. State Bd. of Equal.green2 sentences2002These flaws are fatal." ( Id. at pp. 360-361, 245 Cal.Rptr. 916 .) Finally, in addition to the test discussed above, an initiative would pass muster under the single-subject rule if it were "functionally related in furtherance of a common underlying purpose." ( Schmitz v. Younger, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 100 , 145 Cal.Rptr. 517 , 577 P.2d 652 (dis. opn. of Manuel, J.).) In Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch, Dist, v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 230-231 , 149 Cal.Rptr. 239 , 583 P.2d 1281 , in which Proposition 13 was upheld as constitutional, this test was employed along wit 2002These flaws are fatal." ( Id. at pp. 360-361, 245 Cal.Rptr. 916 .) Finally, in addition to the test discussed above, an initiative would pass muster under the single-subject rule if it were "functionally related in furtherance of a common underlying purpose." ( Schmitz v. Younger, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 100 , 145 Cal.Rptr. 517 , 577 P.2d 652 (dis. opn. of Manuel, J.).) In Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch, Dist, v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 230-231 , 149 Cal.Rptr. 239 , 583 P.2d 1281 , in which Proposition 13 was upheld as constitutional, this test was employed along wit | 1 | 2 |
Brosnahan v. Browngreen2 sentences2006(See, e.g., Brosnahan, supra, 32 Cal.3d 236, 245 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 30 , 651 P.2d 274 ["`an initiative measure does not violate the single-subject requirement if . . . all of its parts are "reasonably germane" to each other,' and to the general purpose or object of the initiative" (italics omitted)]; Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d 492, 512 , 286 Cal.Rptr. 283 , 816 P.2d 1309 , quoting Brosnahan; Jones, supra, 21 Cal.4th 1142, 1157 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 , 988 P.2d 1089 , quoting Eu. ) In applying the reasonably germane test, however, our decisions uniformly have considered only whether each of the parts of a 2006(See, e.g., Brosnahan, supra, 32 Cal.3d 236, 245 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 30 , 651 P.2d 274 ["`an initiative measure does not violate the single-subject requirement if . . . all of its parts are "reasonably germane" to each other,' and to the general purpose or object of the initiative" (italics omitted)]; Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d 492, 512 , 286 Cal.Rptr. 283 , 816 P.2d 1309 , quoting Brosnahan; Jones, supra, 21 Cal.4th 1142, 1157 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 , 988 P.2d 1089 , quoting Eu. ) In applying the reasonably germane test, however, our decisions uniformly have considered only whether each of the parts of a | 1 | 1 |
Senate of the State of Cal. v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2006(See, e.g., Brosnahan, supra, 32 Cal.3d 236, 245 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 30 , 651 P.2d 274 ["`an initiative measure does not violate the single-subject requirement if . . . all of its parts are "reasonably germane" to each other,' and to the general purpose or object of the initiative" (italics omitted)]; Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d 492, 512 , 286 Cal.Rptr. 283 , 816 P.2d 1309 , quoting Brosnahan; Jones, supra, 21 Cal.4th 1142, 1157 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 , 988 P.2d 1089 , quoting Eu. ) In applying the reasonably germane test, however, our decisions uniformly have considered only whether each of the parts of a 2006(See, e.g., Brosnahan, supra, 32 Cal.3d 236, 245 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 30 , 651 P.2d 274 ["`an initiative measure does not violate the single-subject requirement if . . . all of its parts are "reasonably germane" to each other,' and to the general purpose or object of the initiative" (italics omitted)]; Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d 492, 512 , 286 Cal.Rptr. 283 , 816 P.2d 1309 , quoting Brosnahan; Jones, supra, 21 Cal.4th 1142, 1157 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 , 988 P.2d 1089 , quoting Eu. ) In applying the reasonably germane test, however, our decisions uniformly have considered only whether each of the parts of a | 1 | 1 |
Perry v. Jordangreen2 sentences2003(Perry v. Jordan (1949) 34 Cal.2d 87, 92-93 [ 207 P.2d 47 ].) Therefore, cases applying the rule to initiatives are useful in applying the single-subject rule to legislation. 2003(Perry v. Jordan (1949) 34 Cal.2d 87, 92-93 [ 207 P.2d 47 ].) Therefore, cases applying the rule to initiatives are useful in applying the single-subject rule to legislation. | 1 | 1 |
Brosnahan v. Eugreen2 sentences2002(See also Brosnahan v. Eu (1982) 31 Cal.3d 1, 9 , 181 Cal.Rptr. 100 , 641 P.2d 200 (dis. opn. of Mosk J.) [advocating adoption of the functionally related test].) The functionally related test would require that an initiative's various measures are "reasonably interrelated and interdependent, forming an interlocking `package'" designed to accomplish the initiative's purpose. ( Amador Valley, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 231 , 149 Cal.Rptr. 239 , 583 P.2d 1281 .) II. 2002(See also Brosnahan v. Eu (1982) 31 Cal.3d 1, 9 , 181 Cal.Rptr. 100 , 641 P.2d 200 (dis. opn. of Mosk J.) [advocating adoption of the functionally related test].) The functionally related test would require that an initiative's various measures are "reasonably interrelated and interdependent, forming an interlocking `package'" designed to accomplish the initiative's purpose. ( Amador Valley, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 231 , 149 Cal.Rptr. 239 , 583 P.2d 1281 .) II. | 1 | 1 |
Metropolitan Water District v. Marquardtgreen1 sentence1979(City of Long Beach v. Payne, 3 Cal.2d 184 [ 44 P.2d 305 ].) There is nothing in the argument to the voters when section lc of article IV was adopted contrary to such construction or the purposes underlying the ‘one subject’ limitation.” Relying upon Perry v. Jordan , this court applied the reasonably germane test and upheld the California Water Resources Development Bond Act in Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Marquardt (1963) 59 Cal.2d 159, 172-173 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 379 P.2d 28 ]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fair Political Practices Commission v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1982(See 25 Cal.3d at p. 37 .) In FPPC, we reemphasized that the single subject rule is to be "construed liberally," and that "Numerous provisions, having one general object, if fairly indicated in the title, may be united in one act." ( Id., at p. 38, italics added.) In amplification, we used this language in FPPC in describing the overriding principle which controls our disposition of the single-subject attack against Proposition 8: "Consistent with our duty to uphold the people's right to initiative process, we adhere to the reasonably germane test and, in doing so, find that the measure before 1982(See 25 Cal.3d at p. 37 .) In FPPC, we reemphasized that the single subject rule is to be “construed liberally,” and that “Numerous provisions, having one general object, if fairly indicated in the title, may be united in one act.” (Id., at p. 38, italics added.) In amplification, we used this language in FPPC in describing the overriding principle which controls our disposition of the single-subject attack against Proposition 8: “Consistent with our duty to uphold the people’s right to initiative process, we adhere to the reasonably germane test and, in doing so, find that the measure before | 2 | 1982–2006 |
Legislature v. Eu
green
2 sentences2006(See, e.g., Brosnahan, supra, 32 Cal.3d 236, 245 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 30 , 651 P.2d 274 ["`an initiative measure does not violate the single-subject requirement if . . . all of its parts are "reasonably germane" to each other,' and to the general purpose or object of the initiative" (italics omitted)]; Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d 492, 512 , 286 Cal.Rptr. 283 , 816 P.2d 1309 , quoting Brosnahan; Jones, supra, 21 Cal.4th 1142, 1157 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 , 988 P.2d 1089 , quoting Eu. ) In applying the reasonably germane test, however, our decisions uniformly have considered only whether each of the parts of a 2006(See, e.g., Brosnahan, supra, 32 Cal.3d 236, 245 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 30 , 651 P.2d 274 ["`an initiative measure does not violate the single-subject requirement if . . . all of its parts are "reasonably germane" to each other,' and to the general purpose or object of the initiative" (italics omitted)]; Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d 492, 512 , 286 Cal.Rptr. 283 , 816 P.2d 1309 , quoting Brosnahan; Jones, supra, 21 Cal.4th 1142, 1157 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 , 988 P.2d 1089 , quoting Eu. ) In applying the reasonably germane test, however, our decisions uniformly have considered only whether each of the parts of a | 1 | 2006–2006 |
California Trial Lawyers Assn. v. Eu
green
1 sentence2002These flaws are fatal." ( Id. at pp. 360-361, 245 Cal.Rptr. 916 .) Finally, in addition to the test discussed above, an initiative would pass muster under the single-subject rule if it were "functionally related in furtherance of a common underlying purpose." ( Schmitz v. Younger, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 100 , 145 Cal.Rptr. 517 , 577 P.2d 652 (dis. opn. of Manuel, J.).) In Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch, Dist, v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 230-231 , 149 Cal.Rptr. 239 , 583 P.2d 1281 , in which Proposition 13 was upheld as constitutional, this test was employed along wit | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Associated Home Builders of Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. City of Livermore
green
2 sentences1979(Cf. Associated Home Builders etc. Inc. v. City of Livermore, supra, 18 Cal.3d 582, 591-592 .) Accordingly, we adhere to the reasonably germane test for both. *43 (1b) The provisions of the initiative are reasonably germane to the subject of political practices, and there is no violation of the one subject requirement. 1979(Cf. Associated Home Builders etc. Inc. v. City of Livermore, supra, 18 Cal.3d 582, 591-592 .) Accordingly, we adhere to the reasonably germane test for both. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
City of Long Beach v. Payne
green
2 sentences1979(City of Long Beach v. Payne, 3 Cal.2d 184 [ 44 P.2d 305 ].) There is nothing in the argument to the voters when section lc of article IV was adopted contrary to such construction or the purposes underlying the ‘one subject’ limitation.” Relying upon Perry v. Jordan , this court applied the reasonably germane test and upheld the California Water Resources Development Bond Act in Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Marquardt (1963) 59 Cal.2d 159, 172-173 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 379 P.2d 28 ]. 1979(City of Long Beach v. Payne, 3 Cal.2d 184 [ 44 P.2d 305 ].) There is nothing in the argument to the voters when section lc of article IV was adopted contrary to such construction or the purposes underlying the ‘one subject’ limitation.” Relying upon Perry v. Jordan , this court applied the reasonably germane test and upheld the California Water Resources Development Bond Act in Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Marquardt (1963) 59 Cal.2d 159, 172-173 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 379 P.2d 28 ]. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Marquardt
green
2 sentences1979(City of Long Beach v. Payne, 3 Cal.2d 184 [ 44 P.2d 305 ].) There is nothing in the argument to the voters when section lc of article IV was adopted contrary to such construction or the purposes underlying the ‘one subject’ limitation.” Relying upon Perry v. Jordan , this court applied the reasonably germane test and upheld the California Water Resources Development Bond Act in Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Marquardt (1963) 59 Cal.2d 159, 172-173 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 379 P.2d 28 ]. 1979(City of Long Beach v. Payne, 3 Cal.2d 184 [ 44 P.2d 305 ].) There is nothing in the argument to the voters when section lc of article IV was adopted contrary to such construction or the purposes underlying the ‘one subject’ limitation.” Relying upon Perry v. Jordan , this court applied the reasonably germane test and upheld the California Water Resources Development Bond Act in Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Marquardt (1963) 59 Cal.2d 159, 172-173 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 379 P.2d 28 ]. | 1 | 1979–1979 |