Appellant challenged a judgment entered

Appellant challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents. Amicus curiae supported appellant’s appeal in this right to free speech case.

Appellant challenged a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents. The appellate court affirmed. Riverside ADA attorney On appeal, the court was asked to determine whether a public school’s rejection of a sign featuring the Ten Commandments, which was submitted by a private party in response to a fund-raising solicitation for commercial advertisements to be posted on the school’s baseball field, violated that individual’s right to free speech under U.S. Const. art. I, § 2. The court had to decide whether establishment clause considerations embodied in Cal. Const. art. I, § 4 outweighed free speech rights. Applying the three-part Lemon test, the court held the posting would have violated the establishment clause and would have given the impression that the state had placed its imprimatur on a particular religious creed.

The judgment was affirmed. Posting of advertisement featuring Ten Commandments on public school’s baseball field would have violated establishment clause and would have given impression that state placed its imprimatur on particular religious creed.

Appellant sanitary district challenged a decision from the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), which entered judgment in favor of respondent property owners after determining that the property owners had a proprietary interest in a community sewer system.

The property owners subdivided their property and offered the roads therein for dedication to public use. A community sewer system had already been laid under the streets that were dedicated. The sewers were taken over by the sanitary district and the property owners received no compensation. The property owners then brought an action alleging that the sewage disposal facilities belonged to them and sought proprietary damages. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the property owners. The court found that the property owners’ offers of dedication were accepted. The court noted that a formal resolution of acceptance, required by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 11616, was not an essential requirement of statutory dedication. The courts held that the municipality acquired not only the easement of passage, but also the right to grade and improve the surface of the street and to lay sewers, drains, and pipes for various utilities beneath the surface. The court noted that it was immaterial whether the sewers were laid before or after the dedication.

The court reversed the judgment in favor of the property owners in their action against the sanitary district seeking proprietary damages for the taking of a sewage disposal facility. The court ordered the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the sanitary district.