11 Cited authorities

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum
555 U.S. 460 (2009) Cited 658 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a government adopted donated monument because it "took ownership of that monument and put it on permanent display in a park that it owns and manages"
Johanns v. Livestock Mtg. Assoc
544 U.S. 550 (2005) Cited 199 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that beef advertising campaign constituted government speech because the "message set out in the beef promotions is from beginning to end the message established by the Federal Government"
Keller v. State Bar of California
496 U.S. 1 (1990) Cited 214 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "compelled association" of state bar was justified by the "State's interest in regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services"
Mansell v. Board of Administration
30 Cal.App.4th 539 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) Cited 434 times
Waiving appellant's arguments as she failed to "brief the statutory issue on appeal . . . presented no intelligible legal argument as to any other contentions"
Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles Cty
18 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) Cited 317 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "there is no tort remedy for the intentional spoliation of evidence by a party to the cause of action to which the spoliated evidence is relevant, in cases in which, as here, the spoliation victim knows or should have known of the alleged spoliation before the trial or other decision on the merits of the underlying action."
Glickman v. Wileman Brothers Elliott, Inc.
521 U.S. 457 (1997) Cited 108 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Court of Appeals erred in relying on Central Hudson for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of government-mandated assessments for promotional advertising
Gavaldon v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
32 Cal.4th 1246 (Cal. 2004) Cited 60 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding service contract is not express warranty under Song-Beverly Act
Lovell v. Cochran
544 U.S. 1058 (2005) Cited 1 times
No. 04-166. May 31, 2005. Certiorari Granted — Vacated and Remanded. C.A. 3d Cir. Reported below: 359 F. 3d 263; and
Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Kawamura
33 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2004) Cited 25 times
In Gerawan Farming, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 14, 90 P.3d at 1189, the court opined that "the compelled funding of commercial speech does not violate the First Amendment if it is part of a larger marketing program... and if the speech is germane to the purpose of the program."
Cochran v. Veneman
359 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2004) Cited 15 times
Finding First Amendment concerns where an agricultural act "seem[ed] to really be special interest legislation on behalf of the industry's interest more . . . than the government's"

DELANO FARMS COMPANY v. CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPE COMMISSION

11 Cited authorities

Holding that a government adopted donated monument because it "took ownership of that monument and put it on permanent display in a park that it owns and manages"

Holding that beef advertising campaign constituted government speech because the "message set out in the beef promotions is from beginning to end the message established by the Federal Government"

Holding that "compelled association" of state bar was justified by the "State's interest in regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services"

Waiving appellant's arguments as she failed to "brief the statutory issue on appeal . . . presented no intelligible legal argument as to any other contentions"

Holding that the Court of Appeals erred in relying on Central Hudson for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of government-mandated assessments for promotional advertising

Holding service contract is not express warranty under Song-Beverly Act

In Gerawan Farming, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 14, 90 P.3d at 1189, the court opined that "the compelled funding of commercial speech does not violate the First Amendment if it is part of a larger marketing program... and if the speech is germane to the purpose of the program."

Finding First Amendment concerns where an agricultural act "seem[ed] to really be special interest legislation on behalf of the industry's interest more . . . than the government's"