Legal Opinion
City of Riverside v. Stansbury
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 12, 2007No. E040125, E040973PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MILLER, J.
Ken Stansbury (Stansbury), on behalf of Riversiders for Property Rights (RPR), submitted to the City of Riverside (the City) a ballot initiative measure to amend the City’s charter with respect to its practice of eminent domain. The City filed a lawsuit against Stansbury and RPR (respondents), seeking a declaration that the proposed initiative was invalid as it was not a proper subject for a local initiative. Contending that the City’s lawsuit was “an affront to [their] First Amendment rights,” Stansbury and RPR countered with an anti-SLAPP 1 motion (Code Civ. Proc., 2 §…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Kelo v. City of New LondonSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- City of Cotati v. CashmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Flatley v. MauroCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarcheCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations v. EuCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Hylton v. Frank E. Rogozienski, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- City of Hollister v. Monterey InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. v. City of Pico RiveraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Tuszynska v. CunninghamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- BAHARIAN-MEHR v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.