§Why CasetextPricing

Reply_to_opposition

Reply

15 Cited authorities

  1. Roberts v. United States Jaycees

    468 U.S. 609 (1984)   Cited 2,070 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that infringement of the right to associate "may be justified by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms"

  2. Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc.

    525 U.S. 182 (1999)   Cited 481 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional a requirement that initiative petition circulators be registered voters

  3. N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama

    357 U.S. 449 (1958)   Cited 1,986 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[c]ompelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs" may violate the First Amendment

  4. Meyer v. Grant

    486 U.S. 414 (1988)   Cited 562 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the circulation of a petition seeking a ballot initiative is an "interactive communication concerning political change that is appropriately described as ‘core political speech’ "

  5. Perry v. Schwarzenegger

    591 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 124 times
    Holding that mandamus is appropriate to review a discovery order that raises novel and important questions

  6. Alliance for a Better Downtown Millbrae v. Wade

    108 Cal.App.4th 123 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 55 times

    A099453 Filed April 25, 2003 APPEAL from San Mateo County Superior Court, Robert D. Foiles, Judge. Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos Rudy and Michael A. Duncheon, Joan L. Cassman and Stephen B. Peck for Appellants. Fogarty Watson and Mark C. Watson and Dennis Scott Zell, Janet Fogarty Associates and Dennis Scott Zell for Respondents. GEMELLO, J. Does a city elections official have authority to refuse to certify an initiative petition based on extrinsic evidence relating to the manner of its circulation

  7. Perry v. Brown

    52 Cal.4th 1116 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the official proponents of an initiative measure are recognized as having a distinct role—involving both authority and responsibilities that differ from other supporters of the measure”

  8. Persky v. Bushey

    21 Cal.App.5th 810 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 9 times

    H045129 03-26-2018 Aaron PERSKY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Shannon BUSHEY, Respondent; Michele Dauber, et. al., Real Parties in Interest; Alex Padilla, Intervener and Respondent. McManis Faulkner, James McManis, Elizabeth Pipkin, Christine Peek, Law Office of Mark S. Rosen, Mark S. Rosen for Plaintiff and Appellant AARON PERSKY. James R. Williams, County Counsel, Steve Mitra, Assistant County Counsel, Elizabeth G. Pianca, Lead Deputy County Counsel for Respondent SANTA CLARA COUNTY REGISTRAR OF

  9. Capo for Better Representation v. Kelley

    158 Cal.App.4th 1455 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 12 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. G037690. January 16, 2008. Superior Court of Orange County, No. 06CC04889, Hugh Michael Brenner, Judge. Mark Rosen for Plaintiff and Appellant. Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, and Leon J. Page, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION SILLS, P. J. I. INTRODUCTION This case presents an instructive contrast to another election petition case that we publish today, Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners v. City of San Clemente (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1427. In Preserve Shorecliff,

  10. Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners v. City of San Clemente

    158 Cal.App.4th 1427 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 10 times
    Declaring city residency requirement for referendum circulators in subd. (c) of § 9238 unconstitutional

  11. Section 18531 - Return or Attribution of Excessive Contributions

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 18531

    (a) Attribution. A committee that elects to attribute a contribution, or a portion thereof, that exceeds the applicable contribution limit set forth in Section 85301, 85302, 85303, or 85316 to another election pursuant to Section 85319.5(a) or (b) must obtain written confirmation from the contributor that the contribution may be attributed to a different election except the committee may attribute a contribution, or a portion thereof, between a primary and general election for the same term of office