Legal Opinion

Holmes v. California National Guard

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 29, 2001No. A083451, A085180PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

McGUINESS, P. J.

These consolidated appeals arise from a potential conflict between the equal protection and free speech guarantees of the California Constitution and the constraints imposed by preemptive federal law with respect to the policy based on sexual orientation known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (the Policy), as applied to individuals on or eligible for state active duty in the California National Guard. The trial court below declared California Army National Guard Regulation No. 600-1, paragraph 6(d) (hereinafter the Regulation) facially unconstitutional under the California…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
  2. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. English v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  4. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982

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

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Teal v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  2. County of San Diego v. San Diego NORMLCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  3. Saterbak v. JP Morgan Chase Bank CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2016
  4. CHIATELLO v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. Connerly v. SchwarzeneggerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007

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

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

Powered by the Exa API