Legal Opinion

Rubin v. City of Lancaster

District Court, C.D. California

Decided July 13, 2011No. Case No. CV 10-4046 DSF (JCx)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTER COURT TRIAL

DALE S. FISCHER, District Judge.

Having considered the evidence presented by the parties and the arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.1

*1108FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The parties have stipulated that Plaintiffs Shelley Rubin and Maureen I. Feller have standing to pursue this action. Rubin is Jewish; Feller is Christian.

2. Defendant City of Lancaster is a municipal corporation duly organized, existing, and operating under the laws of the State of California.

3. Lancaster’s City Council…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Philomene Long, Surviving Spouse and Heir-At-Law of John Thomas Idlet, Deceased v. County of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
  2. Murdock v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  3. County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Lee v. WeismanSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Marsh v. ChambersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Atheists of Florida, Inc. v. City of LakelandDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API