This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

CV072630 is the Trial Court case # (and its ruling is here. H031658 is just the Appellate Court case #. Superior Court Trial Judge James P. Kleinberg's 27-page decision is informative, but so is the Appellate Court ruling (found via the link from the article) . It seems (but I'm not sure... see edit history of this page) that the State Supreme Court case (#S171023) ruling (found via the case # link at the top of the article) simply denies a motion for depublication.) The meat of the ruling is discussed here by the victors. According to [1],

There is no statutory basis either for copyrighting the GIS basemap or for conditioning its release on a licensing agreement. This issue was a matter of first impression ("de novo") in California, for which the Court concluded that "end user restrictions are incompatible with the purposes and operation of the CPRA."

-- Elvey ( talk) 22:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, the Supreme Court simply denied depublication. The meat is in the Appellate Court decision, which reiterates the trial court findings, and makes them binding on all courts in California. The jurisdiction throughout California is what makes the Appellate decision far more important than the trial court decision. Int21h ( talk) 22:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907021944/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/261/261.F3d.179.00-9011.00-9169.2000.html to http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/261/261.F3d.179.00-9011.00-9169.2000.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC) reply