lexisONE® Community

1. San Leandro Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of San Leandro Unified School Dist., S156961, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 18, 2009, Filed

OVERVIEW: A school district's regulation prohibiting candidate endorsement literature in school mailboxes was a reasonable regulation within the meaning of Gov. Code, § 3543.1, subd. (b), because it enforced Ed. Code, § 7054. The regulation did not violate the free speech clause of Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd. (a).

2. Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Bd., S144753, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, December 24, 2007, Filed

OVERVIEW: Under Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, a shopping mall could not maintain and enforce a rule that prohibited urging customers not to purchase the merchandise or services offered by any one or more of the stores or merchants in the mall.

3. Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Kawamura, S104019 , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 3, 2004, Filed

OVERVIEW: Court remanded for further factfinding to determine whether Plum Marketing Program was intended to promote substantial government interest, whether the generic advertising program directly advanced that interest, and whether it was narrowly tailored.

4. Edelstein v. City and County of San Francisco, No. S102530. , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, November 7, 2002, Decided , November 7, 2002, Filed

OVERVIEW: A measure adopted by the City of San Francisco, California, prohibiting write-in voting in runoff elections for municipal offices did not violate the free speech clause of the California Constitution.

5. Kasky v. Nike, Inc., No. S087859. , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 2, 2002, Decided

OVERVIEW: Where corporation's messages made representations of fact about its operations for purpose of promoting sales of its products, they were commercial speech for purposes of applying state laws barring false and misleading commercial messages.

6. Golden Gateway Ctr. v. Golden Gateway Tenants Ass'n, No. S081900. , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 30, 2001, Decided

OVERVIEW: Residential tenant's association did not have right to distribute its newsletter in privately owned apartment complex which restricted public access; free speech clause of California Constitution only protected against state action.

7. Gerawan Farming v. Lyons, No. S080610. , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, November 27, 2000, Decided

OVERVIEW: Because protection afforded to commercial speech under California's Constitution was broader than that implicated under the First Amendment, agricultural grower's complaint alleging compelled funding of marketing program was reinstated.

8. Kaye v. Board of Trustees of San Diego County Public Law Library, D053644, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, November 10, 2009, Filed

OVERVIEW: Discharge of a law librarian who sent a scathing email to superiors did not violate the California Constitution's free speech clause because he was not speaking as a citizen, and therefore Cal. Const. art. I, § 2, did not insulate his communications from employer discipline. In so holding, the court followed First Amendment precedent.

9. Gallo Cattle Co. v. Kawamura, C053067, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, February 1, 2008, Filed

OVERVIEW: Denial of relief to milk and cheese producer from milk production assessments imposed by state agency was proper where milk producer advertising program did not unconstitutionally compel speech under Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, because it used a cheese package certification seal, a label that boosted sales only of cheese makers who agreed to use it.

10. San Leandro Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of San Leandro Unified School Dist., A114679 & A115686, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, August 28, 2007, Filed

OVERVIEW: A school district did not violate Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, by denying access to district mailboxes, a nonpublic forum, to a teachers association for purposes of political advocacy because the restriction was reasonable, as it limited district involvement in politics, and was viewpoint neutral, in that it restricted all political campaigning.

« Back to Top

Did you find the case you're looking for in these results?
If not, check the available jurisdictions and courts for Free lexisONE Case Searches.