# L.A. All. for Survival v. City of Los Angeles

> California Supreme Court · March 2, 2000 · 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9542866

## Case

- **Full name:** LOS ANGELES ALLIANCE FOR SURVIVAL Et Al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES Et Al., Defendants and Appellants
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 2, 2000
- **Citations:** 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1; 22 Cal. 4th 352; 22 Cal. 352; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 2309; 993 P.2d 334; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1671; 2000 Cal. LEXIS 982
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Werdegar
- **Judges:** George, Werdegar, Mosk, Kennard
- **Cited by:** 86 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9542866

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9542866. Public record. Not legal advice.