Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilson v. County of Napa

California Court of Appeals, First District, Third Division

February 28, 2017

JAMES P. WILSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
COUNTY OF NAPA et al., Defendants and Respondents.

          Order Filed Date Filed 3/13/17

         Napa County Superior Court No. 16CV000457 Honorable Diane M. Price Trial judge.

          Counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants: SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP, Rachel B. Hooper, Robert S. Perlmutter, and Susannah T. French.

          REMCHO, JOHANSEN & PURCELL, Robin B. Johansen, Margaret R. Prinzing for California Wildlife Foundation, California Native Plant Society, Corporate Ethics International, Environmental Defense Center, Forests Forever, Forest Unlimited, Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks, Greenbelt Alliance, Planning & Conservation League, and Save the Bay as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

          Counsel for Defendants and Respondents: MILLER STARR REGALIA, Arthur F. Coon OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL, Minh C. Tran.

          NIELSEN MERKSAMER PARRINELLO GROSS & LEONI LLP, Sean P. Welch and Hilary J. Gibson, for Winegrowers of Napa County, Napa Valley Vintners, Napa County Farm Bureau, and Napa Valley Grapegrowers as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

          COTA COLE LLP, Derek P. Cole for League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

         ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

         THE COURT:

         It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 28, 2017, be modified as follows:

         1. On page 7, line 13, the citation “(§ 4052)” is changed to “(§ 9238, formerly § 4052)” so that the sentence reads:

         As is true of the full text requirement applicable to referendum petitions (§ 9238, formerly § 4052), “the statute's underlying purpose [is] minimizing the possibility prospective signers may misunderstand the purpose of a petition.”

         2. On page 10, line 12, the word “Respondents” is changed to “Proponents” so that the sentence reads:

         Proponents also seek to minimize the significance of the best management practices incorporated into the petition.

         3. On page 11, line 16, delete the second “of” so that the sentence reads:

         The decision also “enforce[d] the statute's underlying purpose of minimizing the possibility prospective signers may ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.