Legal Opinion
City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson
California Supreme Court
Decided May 15, 1980No. L.A. 31126PublishedCited by 135 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
NEWMAN, J.
“All people. . .have inalienable rights”, proclaims the California Constitution in the first sentence of article I. The second sentence reads: “Among these [inalienable rights] are enjoying. . life and liberty,. . . possessing. . . property, and pursuing and obtaining. . . happiness, and privacy.”1
Appellants argue that Santa Barbara and the trial court have violated those rights because the court, on request of the city, ordered appellants to comply with a city ordinance which requires, in the zone where appellants and other individuals live together, that all occupants of…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Moore v. City of East ClevelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Village of Belle Terre v. BoraasSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States Department of Agriculture v. MorenoSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- White v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Associated Home Builders of Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. City of LivermoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by135 opinions
- Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Sterling v. CuppOregon Supreme Court · 1981
- American Academy of Pediatrics v. LungrenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Williams v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.California Supreme Court · 2017
- Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. MyersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
130 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.