Legal Opinion
HORNEFF v. City and County of San Francisco
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 18, 2003No. A100742PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STEIN, J.
The superior court granted a writ of mandate, pursuant to Elections Code section 9295 1 amending the digest prepared by the Ballot Simplification Committee of Proposition A, a revenue bond measure, submitted to the voters of The City and County of San Francisco (hereafter, the City) at the November 2002 municipal election. The City appeals, contending section 9295 does not authorize the revision of a digest that provides an impartial summary of the chief purpose and points of the measure and is neither false nor misleading. We shall conclude that the court erred in issuing the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Epperson v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Boyd v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- Lungren v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Brennan v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Monette-Shaw v. San Francisco Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- McDonough v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Yes On 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Martinez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Becerra v. Superior Court of Sacramento Cnty., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.