Difference between revisions of "California lockdown cases"
(a start) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→See also: Spelling, grammar, and general cleanup) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| 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. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | Beginning with the most recent decisions (as of Nov. 2, 2023): | ||
| + | |||
| + | == 2023 == | ||
| + | 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appellate court ducked the issue of legality by deciding the appeal based on [[mootness]] and labeling this decision as non-precedential and uncitable. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == 2022 == | ||
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 | ||
| Line 11: | Line 15: | ||
5. ''Bols v. Newsom'', United States District Court for the Southern District of California | Sep 27, 2022 | 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233164 | 5. ''Bols v. Newsom'', United States District Court for the Southern District of California | Sep 27, 2022 | 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233164 | ||
| + | ... | ||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
*[[California values]] | *[[California values]] | ||
| + | *[[San Francisco values]] | ||
| + | *[[Hollywood values]] | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Coronavirus]] |
{{coronavirus}} | {{coronavirus}} | ||
Latest revision as of 06:23, November 9, 2023
California lockdown cases are the 58 (and growing) decisions issued in legal challenges to the California 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.
Beginning with the most recent decisions (as of Nov. 2, 2023):
2023
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.
2022
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
3. San Jose v. Cody, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division | Oct 06, 2022 | 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183596
4. Tuck's Rest. & Bar v. Newsom, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California | Oct 02, 2022 | 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181530
5. Bols v. Newsom, United States District Court for the Southern District of California | Sep 27, 2022 | 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233164
...