City of Long Beach v. Bozek
Cases that cite this one
35 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Padres L.P. v. Henderson (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)
- Roa v. Lodi Medical Group, Inc. (Cal. 1985)
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co. (Cal. 1990)
- Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd. (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)
- Vargas v. City of Salinas (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)
- Schroeder v. Irvine City Council (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)
- City of New Haven v. Reichhart (Ind. 2001)
- White v. Lee (9th Cir. 2000)
- Kobzoff v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center (Cal. 1998)
- DeVaney v. Thriftway Marketing Corp. (N.M. 1997)
- Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Bank (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)
- People v. Holt (Cal. 1997)
- Muega v. Menocal (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)
- Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. v. Sparks (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)
- Knight v. City of Capitola (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)
- Leydon v. Alexander (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)
- Planned Protective Services, Inc. v. Gorton (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)
- Finnie v. Town of Tiburon (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)
- Cypher v. Segal (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
- Washburn v. City of Berkeley (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)
- Doe v. Alaska Superior Court, Third Judicial District (Alaska 1986)
- Save Oxnard Shores v. California Coastal Commission (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)
- Winick Corp. v. County Sanitation District No. 2 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)
- Wilhelm v. Pray, Price, Williams & Russell (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)
- Lesser v. Huntington Harbor Corp. (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Opinion
On lanuary 10, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a petition for writ of certiorari in this case and ordered that “The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of California to consider whether its judgment is based upon federal or state constitutional grounds, or both.” (— U.S. — [74 L.Ed.2d 943, 103 S.Ct. 712].)
Pursuant to this mandate, the remittitur is recalled. We have reexamined our decision in this case (reported at 31 Cal.3d 527 [183 Cal.Rptr. 86, 645 P.2d *728 137]), and certify that our judgment is based on both the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 3, of the California Constitution; accordingly, the latter provision furnishes an independent ground to support the decision. Because we deem it unnecessary to modify our prior opinion, we reiterate that opinion in its entirety.
Let the remittitur issue forthwith.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.