§Why CasetextPricing

city and county of san francisco s opposition to petitioner s motion f

undefined

14 Cited authorities

  1. South Dakota v. Opperman

    428 U.S. 364 (1976)   Cited 3,056 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an inventory search was constitutionally permissible in part because there was "no suggestion" that the search "was a pretext concealing an investigatory police motive"

  2. Allen v. City of Sacramento

    234 Cal.App.4th 41 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 409 times
    Holding allegation of "a wrongful arrest or detention, without more, does not" state a claim for violation of the Bane Act

  3. Tobe v. City of Santa Ana

    9 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 456 times
    Holding that the terms camping, living, and store are not "vague ... when the purpose clause of the ordinance is considered and the terms are read in that context as they should be."

  4. Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City

    191 Cal.App.4th 1559 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 226 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting as unripe claim regarding possible condemnation of property when the city had not yet committed to any action regarding the property

  5. Martin v. City of Boise

    920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019)   Cited 124 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[S]o long as there is a greater number of homeless individuals in a jurisdiction than the number of available beds in shelters, the jurisdiction cannot prosecute homeless individuals for involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public."

  6. Hallstrom v. City of Garden City

    991 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 162 times
    Holding that an arrestee's noncooperation with the booking process did not warrant detaining her for four days with no arraignment by a magistrate

  7. Cohen v. Board of Supervisors

    40 Cal.3d 277 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 198 times
    In Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 286-287, our high court stated: “Generally, the ruling on an application for a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.

  8. Triple a Machine Shop, Inc v. State of California

    213 Cal.App.3d 131 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 46 times
    Reversing preliminary injunction barring prosecutors from contacting certain corporate employees during criminal investigation

  9. Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Bd.

    23 Cal.App.4th 1459 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 37 times
    In Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1472, the court weighed defendants' public interest activities against evidence that any harm could readily be redressed by compensatory damages and held that a preliminary injunction was therefore not appropriate.

  10. City of Vernon v. Central Basin Mun. Water Dist.

    69 Cal.App.4th 508 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 24 times
    In City of Vernon v. Central Basin Mun. WaterDist. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 508 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 650] (City of Vernon), the lone prior published case to address the provision, a member of the board of directors of a municipal water district participated in setting the uniform rates at which the district would sell reclaimed water to wholesalers.

  11. Section 527 - Preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 527   Cited 276 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Entitling parties opposing preliminary injunctions to one continuance "to enable the opposing party to meet the application for a preliminary injunction"