Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Huening v. March Fong Eu

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 25, 1991No. C008543PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PUGLIA, P. J.

Elections Code section 3564.1 (hereafter section 3564.1), deals with arguments concerning measures submitted to the voters. It prohibits the use in a ballot argument of the name of anyone represented to be for or against a ballot measure without that person’s consent. In this appeal we decide that section 3564.1 is invalid and of no force or effect because its enactment did not comply with the procedure specified in the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Gov. Code, § 81000 et seq., hereafter the Political Reform Act) for the amendment of that act. (See Gov. Code, § 81012.)

*769I

Secti…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. People ex rel. Drake v. MahaneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
  3. People v. WeidertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  4. People v. PeeteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  5. People v. Western Fruit GrowersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. People v. KellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Amwest Surety Insurance v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. QuackenbushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  4. White v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  5. Kunde v. SeilerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API