# People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co.

> California Supreme Court · May 2, 1985 · 38 Cal. 3d 509

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9547358

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE Ex Rel. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendant and Appellant; DESERT OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 2, 1985
- **Citations:** 38 Cal. 3d 509; 213 Cal. Rptr. 247; 698 P.2d 150; 1985 Cal. LEXIS 272
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** Grodin
- **Cited by:** 31 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/9547358

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding the HBA contains no clear and unambiguous mandate providing for state enforcement, and further concluding that, had Congress intended for states to enforce the HBA on Indian tribal lands, "it would have empowered the relevant state authorities to condemn reservation…

## Opinion text

*524 MOSK, J.
I concur in the majority opinion.
In doing so, however, I wonder about the appearance of consistency when the court defers to federal control of Indian lands in a case involving billboards, after holding that traditional Indian hunting and fishing rights must yield to state control in a case involving fish and game laws. (In re Wilson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 21 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 336 , 634 P.2d 363 ]; but see dis. opn. by Mosk, J., and Newman, J., at p. 37 ff.)
To offer a more convincing rationale in the instant matter, and to provide a recognizable pattern in the law, we should take this opportunity to overrule Wilson.
The petition of respondent Department of Transportation for a rehearing was denied July 10, 1985, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9547358. Public record. Not legal advice.