Gay Games, Inc. v. Smith

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that California’s mental health licensing scheme implicated no fundamental rights and was rationally related to a legitimate state interest
• explaining that “we may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint” in determining whether the complaint states a- claim for relief
• explaining that the challenged regulations were content-neutral because they were “not adopted because of any disagreement with psychoanalytical theories”
• rejecting equal protection challenge to California licensing scheme under rational basis test and stating that “[i]t simply is not the function of the courts to tell California how to craft its legislation”
• in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief, “we may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint”
• in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief, “we may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).