11 Cited authorities

Plyler v. Doe
457 U.S. 202 (1982) Cited 3,012 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that States cannot deny to illegal aliens the free public education they provide to citizens and legally documented aliens
Brown v. Board of Education
347 U.S. 483 (1954) Cited 2,647 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that "in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place"
State of California v. Altus Finance
36 Cal.4th 1284 (Cal. 2005) Cited 91 times
Holding "the fact that there are alternative remedies under a specific statute does not preclude a UCL remedy, unless the statute itself provides that the remedy is to be exclusive"
Purdy Fitzpatrick v. State of California
71 Cal.2d 566 (Cal. 1969) Cited 178 times
Rejecting the argument that conditions of unemployment in the state validated discrimination against lawfully admitted aliens
Hodges v. Superior Court
21 Cal.4th 109 (Cal. 1999) Cited 70 times
Interpreting the meaning of a provision “ ‘is to discern the sense of the statute, and therefore its words, in the legal and broader culture ’ ”
Martinez v. Regents of University of California
50 Cal.4th 1277 (Cal. 2010) Cited 32 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that "immediate presence" in section 215 had the same meaning as in section 211 and could include a victim being carjacked while baking in the kitchen
Darces v. Woods
35 Cal.3d 871 (Cal. 1984) Cited 35 times
Excluding undocumented siblings from the definition of essential persons for AFDC purposes violated state's constitutional guarantee of equal protection
Perez v. Sharp
32 Cal.2d 711 (Cal. 1948) Cited 91 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an antimiscegenation statute unjustifiably impaired the fundamental right to marry, not the fundamental right to interracial marriage
Sei Fujii v. State of California
38 Cal.2d 718 (Cal. 1952) Cited 74 times
In Sei Fujii v. State of California, 38 Cal.2d 718, 730-731 [ 242 P.2d 617], the Supreme Court of this state, recognizing that the latest declarations of the United States Supreme Court on the California Alien Land Law were irreconcilable with the approach previously taken in a case which had not been overruled (and in which, unlike the Drueding case, there had been a full-fledged opinion), followed the more recent decisions.
Raffaelli v. Committee of Bar Examiners
7 Cal.3d 288 (Cal. 1972) Cited 35 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Raffaelli, the California Supreme Court struck down a California statute excluding aliens from admission to the State Bar.
Section 1621 - Aliens who are not qualified aliens or nonimmigrants ineligible for State and local public benefits
8 U.S.C. § 1621 Cited 103 times 2 Legal Analyses
Granting the U.S. Attorney General sole discretion to exempt certain state or local public benefits from PRWORA’s restrictions

GARCIA (SERGIO C.) ON ADMISSION

11 Cited authorities

Holding that States cannot deny to illegal aliens the free public education they provide to citizens and legally documented aliens

Holding that "in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place"

Holding "the fact that there are alternative remedies under a specific statute does not preclude a UCL remedy, unless the statute itself provides that the remedy is to be exclusive"

Rejecting the argument that conditions of unemployment in the state validated discrimination against lawfully admitted aliens

Interpreting the meaning of a provision “ ‘is to discern the sense of the statute, and therefore its words, in the legal and broader culture ’ ”

Finding that "immediate presence" in section 215 had the same meaning as in section 211 and could include a victim being carjacked while baking in the kitchen

Excluding undocumented siblings from the definition of essential persons for AFDC purposes violated state's constitutional guarantee of equal protection

Holding that an antimiscegenation statute unjustifiably impaired the fundamental right to marry, not the fundamental right to interracial marriage

In Raffaelli, the California Supreme Court struck down a California statute excluding aliens from admission to the State Bar.

Granting the U.S. Attorney General sole discretion to exempt certain state or local public benefits from PRWORA’s restrictions