American Civil Liberties Union v. Board of Education, 359 P.2d 57

American Civil Liberties Union v. Board of Education

359 P.2d 57 | Cal. | 1961

Lead Opinion

DOOLING, J.

— Petitioners seek a writ of mandate to compel the Board of Education of the City of San Diego to grant their application for the use of certain school buildings in San Diego in which to hold a series of monthly public meetings on the general theme of ‘1 Civil Liberties and the Constitution.” As in the companion Los Angeles School Board case (L. A. 25788, ante, p. 167 [10 Cal.Rptr. 647, 359 P.2d 45]), petitioners refused to furnish the required “Statement of Information” (Ed. Code, § 16565) and the board denied petitioners’ use of the requested school premises.

The questions presented are identical with those presented in the Los Angeles case, and the disposition should be the same.

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent to act upon any pending or future application by petitioners to be allowed to hold a public meeting or meetings in any of the school buildings described in the petition without *907requiring from petitioners a “Statement of Information” in the form prescribed by section 16565 of the Education Code.

Gibson, C. J., Traynor, J., and Peters, J., concurred.

Dissenting Opinion

WHITE, J.

— I dissent.

Upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, a California Corporation-, Eason Monroe, Director and Willard Carpenter, Associate Director, Petitioners v. Board of Education of Che City of Los Angeles, Respondent, L. A. 25788, this day filed, ante, p. 182 [10 Cal.Bptr. 647, 359 P.2d 45], I would discharge the alternative writ and deny the petition for a peremptory writ of mandate.

Dissenting Opinion

SCHAUEB, J.

— Dissenting.—For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice White in American Civil Liberties Union v. Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles, ante, p. 182 [10 Cal.Rptr. 647, 359 P.2d 45], and for the reasons stated in the opinion of Presiding Justice Fox, concurred in by Justice Ashburn and Justice pro tempore Kincaid,* when that ease was before the District Court of Appeal (reported in (Cal.App.) 5 Cal.Rptr. 215), I would discharge the alternative writ and deny the petition for a peremptory writ of mandate.

McComb, J., concurred.

Bespondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied February 21, 1961. Schauer, J., McComb, J., and White, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.