Legal Opinion
Paradise Hills Associates v. Procel
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 15, 1991No. E008024PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DABNEY, Acting P. J.
—Brenda Procel (Procel) appeals from a preliminary injunction which restricts certain speech and activities. She contends that the injunction improperly interferes with her First Amendment rights.
Facts
Paradise Hills Associates (PHA) is the owner and developer of Paradise Hills Subdivision (Paradise Hills) in Colton. Paradise Hills consists of three phases. Phase 1 contains 39 single family houses, all of which have been sold; phases 2 and 3 are being built and sold and will eventually contain 70 houses. PHA maintains a sales office and model houses within Paradise…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Lovell v. City of GriffinSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Organization for a Better Austin v. KeefeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Kowis v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University, LlcCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Wilbanks v. WolkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Krinsky v. Doe 6California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Commonwealth Energy Corp. v. Investor Data Exchange, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2003
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.