47 Cited authorities

  1. New York v. Ferber

    458 U.S. 747 (1982)   Cited 1,810 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding child pornography is not subject to First Amendment protections
  2. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

    535 U.S. 234 (2002)   Cited 807 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding invalid the challenged provision of the CPPA because it “cover[ed] materials beyond the categories recognized in Ferber and Miller”
  3. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.

    513 U.S. 64 (1994)   Cited 682 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because "the age of the performers is the crucial element separating legal innocence from wrongful conduct" under a child-pornography statute, the statute requires that the defendant have knowledge of the performer's age
  4. Osborne v. Ohio

    495 U.S. 103 (1990)   Cited 658 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that government interests prohibiting the possession of child pornography are much stronger than those supporting the prohibition of pornography generally
  5. Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n

    485 U.S. 439 (1988)   Cited 673 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an adherent was not entitled to challenge a third party's actions that offended his beliefs
  6. People v. Farnam

    28 Cal.4th 107 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 689 times
    Finding no misconduct where prosecutor referred to the defendant during opening statement as monstrous, cold-blooded, and a predator
  7. Santa Clara Cty. Local Transp. Authority v. Guardino

    11 Cal.4th 220 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 201 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Discussing statewide right to initiative
  8. Dart Industries v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.

    28 Cal.4th 1059 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 148 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding burden on insurer to prove exclusion where original policy is lost
  9. People v. Kurey

    88 Cal.App.4th 840 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 145 times
    In Kurey, the court limited its inquiry to considering whether, "upon review of the entire record, there is substantial evidence of solid value, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the trial court's decision."
  10. In re Alva

    33 Cal.4th 254 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that lifetime registration for misdemeanor sexual offenders was not `punishment within the meaning of the cruel or unusual punishment clause'
  11. Section 2252A - Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography

    18 U.S.C. § 2252A   Cited 4,291 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Providing a 20-year statutory maximum for receipt and possession of child pornography
  12. Rule 9.20 - Duties of disbarred, resigned, or suspended attorneys

    Cal. R. 9.20   Cited 781 times

    (a) Disbarment, suspension, and resignation orders The Supreme Court may include in an order disbarring or suspending a licensee of the State Bar, or accepting his or her resignation, a direction that the licensee must, within such time limits as the Supreme Court may prescribe: (1) Notify all clients being represented in pending matters and any co-counsel of his or her disbarment, suspension, or resignation and his or her consequent disqualification to act as an attorney after the effective date

  13. Rule 9.10 - Authority of the State Bar Court

    Cal. R. 9.10   Cited 523 times

    (a)Conviction proceedings The State Bar Court exercises statutory powers under Business and Professions Code sections 6101 and 6102 with respect to the discipline of attorneys convicted of crimes. (See Bus. & Prof. Code § 6087.) For purposes of this rule, a judgment of conviction is deemed final when the availability of appeal has been exhausted and the time for filing a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on direct review of the judgment of conviction has elapsed and no petition

  14. Rule 9.12 - Standard of review for State Bar Court Review Department

    Cal. R. 9.12   Cited 3 times

    In reviewing the decisions, orders, or rulings of a hearing judge under rule 301 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California or such other rule as may be adopted governing the review of any decisions, orders, or rulings by a hearing judge that fully disposes of an entire proceeding, the Review Department of the State Bar Court must independently review the record and may adopt findings, conclusions, and a decision or recommendation different from those of the hearing judge. Cal. R. Ct