Legal Opinion
Miller v. Miller
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 22, 1978No. Civ. 17226PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*764Opinion
PARAS, J.
In Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206, 209-210 [130 Cal.Rptr. 697, 551 P.2d 1], our Supreme Court ruled that “. . . at least in the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a partisan position in an election campaign . . . .” Relying in part upon Stanson, plaintiffs challenge the expenditure of public funds by the California Commission on the Status of Women (Commission) to promote ratification of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs appeal after the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Stanson v. MottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Hawke v. Smith (No. 1)Supreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Citizens, & C., Public Funds v. Bd. of Educ. Tp. of Parsippany-Troy HillsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1953
- Stern v. KramarskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
- Anderson v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Schroeder v. Irvine City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- California Common Cause v. DuffyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Keller v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- League of Women Voters v. Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination CommitteeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- Miller v. California Commission on Status of WomenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.