Macerich Management Co.

24 Cited authorities

Ward v. Rock Against Racism
491 U.S. 781 (1989) Cited 2,956 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that music is protected expression
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence
468 U.S. 288 (1984) Cited 1,486 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a ban on sleeping overnight in a park was a permissible "limitation on the manner of demonstrating"
Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley
408 U.S. 92 (1972) Cited 1,353 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding a law was content-based where it prohibited nonlabor-related picketing at a place of employment
DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Trades Council
485 U.S. 568 (1988) Cited 732 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union’s distribution of handbills at the entrances of a shopping mall was not threatening, coercing, or restraining within meaning of section 8(b) because there had been "no violence, picketing, or patrolling," and "no suggestion that the leaflets had any coercive effect on customers of the mall"
Carey v. Brown
447 U.S. 455 (1980) Cited 740 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that ordinance violated equal protection where it banned all residential picketing except picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
447 U.S. 74 (1980) Cited 737 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that "views expressed by members of the public" in a privately owned shopping mall "will not likely be identified with those of the owner"
Lechmere, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
502 U.S. 527 (1992) Cited 156 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent
Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962) Cited 298 times
Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"
Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center
23 Cal.3d 899 (Cal. 1979) Cited 228 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that California's constitution protected free speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in privately owned shopping centers
Golden Gateway Center v. Golden Gateway Tenants Ass'n
26 Cal.4th 1013 (Cal. 2001) Cited 60 times
Holding that a privately owned retail and residential apartment complex was "not the functional equivalent of a traditional public forum" because access to the complex was "carefully limit[ed]"
Section 527.3 - When restraining orders or injunctions prevented in labor disputes
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 527.3 Cited 50 times 10 Legal Analyses
In section 527.3 as finally enacted, the provisions added by amendment strike a discordant stance from those surviving from the original draft, thus creating difficult problems of statutory interpretation.
Section 1138 - Liability
Cal. Lab. Code § 1138 Cited 8 times
Requiring clear proof of actual participation or actual authorization

Macerich Management Co.

24 Cited authorities

Holding that music is protected expression

Holding that a ban on sleeping overnight in a park was a permissible "limitation on the manner of demonstrating"

Holding a law was content-based where it prohibited nonlabor-related picketing at a place of employment

Holding that ordinance violated equal protection where it banned all residential picketing except picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute

Holding that "views expressed by members of the public" in a privately owned shopping mall "will not likely be identified with those of the owner"

Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent

Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

Holding that California's constitution protected free speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in privately owned shopping centers

Holding that a privately owned retail and residential apartment complex was "not the functional equivalent of a traditional public forum" because access to the complex was "carefully limit[ed]"

In section 527.3 as finally enacted, the provisions added by amendment strike a discordant stance from those surviving from the original draft, thus creating difficult problems of statutory interpretation.

Requiring clear proof of actual participation or actual authorization