holding that, for purposes of analysis under the Liberty of Speech Clause, “regulations ... that single out the public solicitation of funds for distinct treatment, should not be viewed as content based”
How later courts described this case
- holding that, for purposes of analysis under the Liberty of Speech Clause, “regulations ... that single out the public solicitation of funds for distinct treatment, should not be viewed as content based”
- “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.”
- awarding fees where plaintiff prevailed, through litigation, on pendent state constitutional law claims
- "On remand in this case, the city may attempt to show that the likelihood of its (Continued) engaging in similar constitutional violations is sufficiently remote to make in-junctive relief unnecessary.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Irvine Co., 249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 391 (2019)
Alliance, supra , 22 Cal.4th 352, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 993 P.2d 334, on which Defendant relies, is inapposite.
The opinion
WERDEGAR, J., Concurring.
I have signed the majority opinion. I write separately only to make clear that the opinion does not decide any question about the constitutionality of rule 29.5 of the California Rules of Court. The rule reflects the assumption that the California Constitution gives this court jurisdiction to answer certified questions. As the majority notes, some other states’ supreme courts have found themselves to possess similar powers under their own state constitutions. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 361.) We do not today address the scope and limits of the provisions defining our own powers (Cal. Const., art. VI, §§ 10, 11, 12) because, as the majority also notes, the parties have not questioned rule 29.5’s validity.