# Spiritual Psychic Science Church of Truth, Inc. v. City of Azusa

> California Supreme Court · August 15, 1985 · 39 Cal. 3d 501

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599696

## Case

- **Full name:** SPIRITUAL PSYCHIC SCIENCE CHURCH OF TRUTH, INC., Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF AZUSA, Defendant and Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 15, 1985
- **Citations:** 39 Cal. 3d 501; 217 Cal. Rptr. 225; 703 P.2d 1119; 1985 Cal. LEXIS 318
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kaus
- **Judges:** Mosk, Kaus, Lucas
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Disapproved on other grounds by Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal. 4th 939 (2002).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599696

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that when people who “believe they possess the power to predict what has not yet come to pass ... impart their beliefs to others, they are not acting fraudulently; they are communicating opinions which, however dubious, are unquestionably protected by the Constitution”
- explaining that when people who "believe they possess the power to predict what has not yet come to pass... impart their beliefs to others, they are not acting fraudulently; they are communicating opinions which, however dubious, are unquestionably protected by the Constitution"

## Opinion text

KAUS, J.
I agree that the ordinance is overbroad. On the other hand, the First Amendment has been around for a long time, as have been state and local laws against fortunetelling and decisions upholding them. (See cases cited in In re Bartha (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 584, 589 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 39 , 91 A.L.R.3d 759 ].) It is a fact that plaintiff cites no case which elevates fortunetelling to the same free speech pedestal as does the majority. I cannot help feeling that the core values of the First Amendment have somehow become obliterated in the court’s somewhat formalistic application of precedent based on entirely different facts. In short, I am more optimistic than the majority that a constitutionally acceptable ordinance can be drafted.
Reynoso, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599696. Public record. Not legal advice.