Legal Opinion

Gebert v. Patterson

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 28, 1986No. A033408PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ANDERSON, P. J.

The issue here presented for the first time in California is whether a local regulation which requires the proponent of a ballot argument to pay a fee before it is published in the voter’s handbook is constitutional.

Stony Gebert (appellant) was the indigent proponent of the Marijuana Privacy Act Initiative (Prop. G) on the November 1985 ballot for the City and County of San Francisco. In August 1985, he submitted to Jay Patterson, the San Francisco Registrar of Voters (respondent) a ballot argument in favor of Proposition G—the Marijuana Initiative Fund measure—together…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Bullock v. CarterSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Lubin v. PanishSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Stanson v. MottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Clark v. BurleighCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Leon S. Kaplan v. County of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  3. Albertson's, Inc. v. YoungCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
  4. Huening v. March Fong EuCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  5. Horwath v. City of East Palo AltoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989

11 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