§Why CasetextPricing

RAND RESOURCES v. CITY OF CARSON

Amicus Curiae Brief of California Newspaper Publishers Association; Californians Aware; The Center for Investigative Reporting; First Amendment Coalition; The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; A&E Television Networks, LLC; Buzzfeed, Inc.; Cable News Network, Inc.; CBS Corporation; Dow Jones and Company; First Look Media Works, Inc.; The Hearst Corporation; NBCUniversal Media, LLC; The New York Times Company; and The Motion Picture Association of America;

84 Cited authorities

  1. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

    376 U.S. 254 (1964)   Cited 6,904 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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

  2. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

    418 U.S. 323 (1974)   Cited 3,871 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a private defamation plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages without proving actual malice

  3. Snyder v. Phelps

    562 U.S. 443 (2011)   Cited 807 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Westboro Baptist Church's protest of military funerals with signs that display "Thank God for IEDs" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" is protected speech

  4. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal

    497 U.S. 1 (1990)   Cited 1,699 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statement of "opinion" reasonably implying false and defamatory facts is subject to same culpability requirements as statement of facts

  5. Rankin v. McPherson

    483 U.S. 378 (1987)   Cited 1,609 times
    Holding clerical employee's dismissal for supporting assassination attempt on President unconstitutional

  6. Waters v. Churchill

    511 U.S. 661 (1994)   Cited 928 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that basing a termination decision on "the word of two trusted employees, the endorsement of those employees’ reliability," and "a face-to-face meeting with the employee he fired" was reasonable and "no further time needed to be taken"

  7. City of San Diego v. Roe

    543 U.S. 77 (2004)   Cited 549 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that reliance on NTEU “was seriously misplaced” when plaintiff deliberately linked speech to public employment

  8. Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart

    427 U.S. 539 (1976)   Cited 1,426 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the record [was] lacking in evidence to support" a finding that alternative "measures might not be adequate"

  9. Navellier v. Sletten

    29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,916 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim for relief filed in federal district court is protected activity

  10. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.

    472 U.S. 749 (1985)   Cited 731 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "credit report concerns no public issue"

  11. Section 2

    Cal. Const. art. I § 2   Cited 476 times
    Restricting prohibition to state-licensed “mental health providers”

  12. 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

  13. Rule 8.486 - Petitions

    Cal. R. 8.486   Cited 72 times

    (a)Contents of petition (1) If the petition could have been filed first in a lower court, it must explain why the reviewing court should issue the writ as an original matter. (2) If the petition names as respondent a judge, court, board, or other officer acting in a public capacity, it must disclose the name of any real party in interest. (3) If the petition seeks review of trial court proceedings that are also the subject of a pending appeal, the notice "Related Appeal Pending" must appear on the