Changes

no edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:  
'''California lockdown cases''' are the 58 (and growing) decisions issued in legal challenges to the [[California]] [[tyranny|tyrannical]] lockdown policies euphemistically called its "Blueprint for a Safer Economy," during the [[COVID-19]] pandemic.  This list does not include the legal challenges to California's multi-month "stay-at-home" [[martial law]] prior to its color-coded Blueprint scheme.
 
'''California lockdown cases''' are the 58 (and growing) decisions issued in legal challenges to the [[California]] [[tyranny|tyrannical]] lockdown policies euphemistically called its "Blueprint for a Safer Economy," during the [[COVID-19]] pandemic.  This list does not include the legal challenges to California's multi-month "stay-at-home" [[martial law]] prior to its color-coded Blueprint scheme.
 
   
 
   
−
1.     ''Provence, LLC v. Newsom'', Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District | Jun 12, 2023 | 2023 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3368
+
1.     ''Provence, LLC v. Newsom'', Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District | Jun 12, 2023 | 2023 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3368 - appellate court ducked the issue of legality by deciding the appeal based on [[mootness]] and labeling this decision as non-precedential and uncitable.
    
2.     ''Godspeak Calvary Chapel v. Cty. of Ventura'', Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six | Oct 27, 2022 | 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6531
 
2.     ''Godspeak Calvary Chapel v. Cty. of Ventura'', Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six | Oct 27, 2022 | 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6531
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,204

edits