Legal Opinion
People ex rel. Brown v. Puritec
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 7, 2007No. C052167PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DAVIS, Acting P. J.
California has two statutes that prohibit the seller of a water treatment device from making performance or benefit claims that the device affects health or the safety of drinking water, unless the device has been certified by the State Department of Public Health: Health and Safety Code section 116835, subdivision (a), and Business and Professions Code section 17577.2, subdivision (c).1
In this appeal we conclude that these two statutes do not violate the federal Constitution’s dormant commerce clause or First Amendment, as applied to health claims made by defendant…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Board of Trustees of State Univ. of NY v. FoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Steiner v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Eder v. Department of Fish & GameCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Interlink Products International, Inc. v. CrowfootDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- People v. ShapiroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Steiner v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2013