California Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Randolph

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a disclosure requirement was not unconstitutionally overbroad without a showing that contributors could be injured by public disclosure
• explaining that a verified complaint may serve as an affidavit for purposes of summary judgment if it is based on personal knowledge and sets forth the requisite facts with specificity
• noting that the informational interest was “well-established” and that California presented persuasive evidence demonstrating that it was compelling
• explaining that a verified complaint may serve as an affidavit for purposes of summary judgment if it is based on personal knowledge and sets forth the requisite facts with specificity
• upholding contribution disclosure requirements covering contributions totaling $100 or more and requiring disclosure of the contributor’s name, address, occupation and employer
• applying strict scrutiny to a multi-purpose organization after McConnell, albeit relying in part on the “law of the case” doctrine

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).