The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District has upheld the District Court for the Eastern District of California’s granting of BPELSG’s motion to dismiss Crownholm’s appeal from his citation by the Board for unlicensed practice of land surveying.
In a Memorandum issued March 7, the Court of Appeals analyzed Crownholm’s arguments and determined that they were insufficient to overturn the District Court’s ruling.
Crownholm’s appeal from the Board citation was filed in federal court under the guise of protection of freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The District Court held that, while speech is protected, actions contrary to California’s regulatory scheme are not.
Appellate Decision in Crownholm v BPELSG
-
Warren Smith
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
- Location: Sonora
Appellate Decision in Crownholm v BPELSG
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor
Tuolumne County
County Surveyor
Tuolumne County
-
LS9200
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:32 pm
Re: Appellate Decision in Crownholm v BPELSG
Will be interesting to see if they try and go farther with this. I'll take this as a win for surveying and professional licensing as a whole.
My understanding of the courts is that now all lower courts within the 9th district must follow this ruling unless there are compelling reasons to distinguish their current case from the now established precedent by the appellate court.
My understanding of the courts is that now all lower courts within the 9th district must follow this ruling unless there are compelling reasons to distinguish their current case from the now established precedent by the appellate court.
-
DWoolley
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
- Location: Orange County
- Contact:
Re: Appellate Decision in Crownholm v BPELSG
Ixnay. I believe the case is "unpublished".LS9200 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 11:56 am ...
My understanding of the courts is that now all lower courts within the 9th district must follow this ruling unless there are compelling reasons to distinguish their current case from the now established precedent by the appellate court.
DWoolley