Legal Opinion
Buhl v. Hannigan
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 30, 1993No. G012245PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SONENSHINE, J.
Plaintiffs and Appellants Timothy Buhl, Jerald Bowman, Guru Bir Singh Khalsa and Peter Daniels appeal from a court order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the state from enforcing California’s Mandatory Motorcycle Helmet Law, Vehicle Code section 27802 et seq. (helmet law) during the pendency of their action to have the law declared unconstitutional. Defendants and respondents, sued in their official capacities, are Maurice Hannigan, Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol (CHP), Frank Zolin, Director of the Department of…
2Cases cited57 opinions
- Sherbert v. VernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Paris Adult Theatre I v. SlatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Hicks v. MirandaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Hale v. MorganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. HanniganCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- People v. FitchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- People v. SipeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- In re B.S.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1997
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.