lbo-talk-digest V1 #3555

Leslilake1 at aol.com Leslilake1 at aol.com
Wed Nov 1 09:18:27 PST 2000


Re the discussion on activities at malls - not "plumfield", but "pruneyard"....not the us supremes, but the cals...

LJ

<< 447 U.S. 74 PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER ET AL. v. ROBINS ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 79-289. Argued March 18, 1980. Decided June 9, 1980.

The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the California Constitution protects "speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the centers are privately owned." 23 Cal. 3d 899, 910, 592 P.2d 341, 347 (1979). It concluded that appellees were entitled to conduct their activity on PruneYard property. In rejecting appellants' contention that such a result infringed property rights protected by the Federal Constitution, the California Supreme Court observed:

"`It bears repeated emphasis that we do not have under consideration the property or privacy rights of an individual homeowner or the proprietor of a modest retail establishment. As a result of advertising and the lure of a congenial environment, 25,000 persons are induced to congregate daily to take advantage of the numerous amenities offered by the [shopping center there]. A handful of additional orderly persons soliciting signatures and distributing handbills in connection therewith, under reasonable regulations adopted by defendant to assure that these activities do not interfere with normal business operations (see Diamond [v. Bland, 3 Cal. 3d 653, 665, 477 P.2d 733, 741 (1970)]) would not markedly dilute defendant's property rights.' ([Diamond v. Bland, 11 Cal. 3d 331, 345, 521 P.2d 460, 470 (1974)] (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).)" Id., at 910-911, 592 P.2d, at 347-348.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list