California Court of Appeal· 7/30/1984
People v. Trantham
Citations
- 161 Cal. App. 3d 1
- 208 Cal. Rptr. 535
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- rejecting facial vagueness challenge regarding term \loiter\ because the statute was \simply a park closure law\ banning presence
- rejecting facial vagueness challenge regarding term “loiter” because the statute was “simply a park closure law” banning presence
- upholding, as reasonable, late night park closure regulation and finding “its proscription against anyone entering, remaining, staying, or loitering in any park during the late night hours ... is not void for vagueness or overbreadth”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Cooperman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Nunez v. City of San DiegoNinth Circuit· 1997-06-09· cited 115×
- City & County of San Francisco v. Eller Outdoor AdvertisingCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1987-06-11· cited 15×
- People v. DavenportAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California· 1985-10-21· cited 8×
- People v. ScottAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California· 1993-10-14· cited 7×
- State of New Hampshire v. Catherine Bailey & a.Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 2014-08-08· cited 5×
- People v. StoneAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California· 1987-01-21· cited 4×
Cites
69 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court· 1983-05-02· cited 3,306×
- Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for VincentSupreme Court· 1984-05-15· cited 2,188×
- Papachristou v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court· 1972-02-24· cited 1,862×
- Clark v. Community for Creative Non-ViolenceSupreme Court· 1984-06-29· cited 1,847×
- Cox v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 1965-01-18· cited 1,449×
- Lanzetta v. New JerseySupreme Court· 1939-03-27· cited 1,416×
- Cox v. New HampshireSupreme Court· 1941-03-31· cited 1,045×
- Lambert v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1958-01-27· cited 895×
- Hudgens v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court· 1976-03-03· cited 720×
- Texaco, Inc. v. ShortSupreme Court· 1982-01-12· cited 543×
- People v. RedmondCalifornia Supreme Court· 1969-08-05· cited 505×
- Estate of McDillCalifornia Supreme Court· 1975-07-24· cited 309×
- Mercer v. PerezCalifornia Supreme Court· 1968-01-23· cited 262×
- People v. ChaddCalifornia Supreme Court· 1981-01-19· cited 214×
- Burg v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1983-12-22· cited 193×
- Murgia v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1975-09-24· cited 192×
- Bowland v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1976-12-06· cited 185×
- Pipoly v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1942-05-01· cited 175×
- In Re CreglerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1961-07-20· cited 170×
- People v. VogelCalifornia Supreme Court· 1956-06-28· cited 155×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.