Legal Opinion
Carrico v. City and County of San Francisco
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 6, 2011No. 09-17151PublishedCited by 365 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BLOCK, District Judge:
The Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute (“SPOSFI”) and Mary Figone appeal the district court’s judgment rejecting their facial First Amendment and vagueness challenges to portions of “Proposition M,” a popularly enacted amendment to the rent-stabilization ordinance of the City and County of San Francisco (“the City”). Because we conclude that both SPOSFI and Figone lack standing, we cannot reach the merits of their challenges. Instead, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Allen v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers National UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by365 opinions
- James Steinle v. City and County of S.F.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- Leland Wheeler v. City of Santa ClaraCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- Washington Environmental Counc v. Theodore SturdevantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Opinion Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Wizards of the Coast LLC v. Cryptozoic Entertainment LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2015
360 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.