Riley v. California
573 U.S. 373 (2014) Cited 2,600 times 90 Legal AnalysesHolding that an employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the call records and text messages contained on a cell phone owned by his employer because he "had a right to exclude others from using the phone" and explaining that "a property interest in the item searched is only one factor in the analysis, and lack thereof is not dispositive"
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
376 U.S. 254 (1964) Cited 6,906 times 36 Legal AnalysesHolding that a public official or public figure can recover damages for defamation on a matter of public concern only if he proves that the speaker acted with actual malice
Buckley v. Valeo
424 U.S. 1 (1976) Cited 3,410 times 37 Legal AnalysesHolding that a public financing law does not "abridge, restrict, or censor" expression
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia
448 U.S. 555 (1980) Cited 1,644 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding that criminaltrials must be open to the public
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court
457 U.S. 596 (1982) Cited 1,465 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that safeguarding well-being of minor is compelling and may justify closure of criminal trial from public access
Branzburg v. Hayes
408 U.S. 665 (1972) Cited 1,806 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that government need not “demonstrate some ‘compelling need’ for a newsman's testimony”
United States v. United States District Court
407 U.S. 297 (1972) Cited 1,384 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that no warrant exception existed for "domestic security" surveillance but explicitly stating that the Court had "not addressed, and express[ed] no opinion as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents"
N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama
357 U.S. 449 (1958) Cited 1,952 times 8 Legal AnalysesHolding that "[c]ompelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs" may violate the First Amendment
New York Times Co. v. United States
403 U.S. 713 (1971) Cited 860 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that a claim of potential harm to national security does not provide the executive branch with unconstrained authority to override the freedom of the press
Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club Pac v. Bennett
564 U.S. 721 (2011) Cited 193 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding no compelling interest in “leveling the playing field” via election funding statute for Free Speech Clause purposes
Section 1
Cal. Const. art. I § 1 Cited 1,056 times 1 Legal AnalysesProviding "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"
Section 9
Cal. Const. art. I § 9 Cited 670 times 2 Legal AnalysesA bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed. Cal. Const. art. I § 9
Section 2
Cal. Const. art. I § 2 Cited 476 timesRestricting prohibition to state-licensed “mental health providers”
Section 3
Cal. Const. art. I § 3 Cited 296 times 2 Legal AnalysesCreating constitutional right of access to public agency records and calling for strict construction of statutes limiting such access
Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice
Cal. R. 8.520 Cited 3,146 times(a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or