Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Irvine Co.
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
*101In this case we consider whether certain restrictions applicable to noncommercial speech and expressive activities at two large outdoor retail centers owned by defendant and respondent The Irvine Company, LLC (Defendant) are constitutional under the free speech protections established in article I, section 2 of the California Constitution. The trial court concluded some of the challenged restrictions were unconstitutional and enjoined their enforcement. But it upheld restrictions on (1) "grisly or gruesome displays," (2) the locations in which speech and expressive conduct may occur, and (3)…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Ward v. Rock Against RacismSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Branzburg v. HayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for VincentSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- R. A. v. v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- (PC) Warzek v. Valley State PrisonDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- (PC) Warzek v. Valley State PrisonDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
- (PS) Gifford v. Hornbrook Fire Protection DistrictDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
- Animal Protection and Rescue etc. v. County of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
- Baldwin Park Free Speech Coalition v. City of Baldwin ParkDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2020
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.