DANIEL SHEEHAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS, LTD., Defendant and Respondent.
Supreme Court of California.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
March 3, 2009.
March 3, 2009.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Chapman, Popik & White, Mark A. White, Benjamin J. Riley; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, Ann Brick and Margaret C. Crosby for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Brad Seligman and Alvaro D. Soria for Impact Fund, Legal Aid Society—Employment Law Center and Public Advocates, Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Altshuler Berzon, Michael Rubin and Peder J. Thoreen for Unite Here as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Eric Grant; John W. Whitehead and Douglas R. McKusick for The Rutherford Institute as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Covington & Burling, Sonya D. Winner, Jonathan A. Patchen, Deepa Varadarajan and William V. Goldfarb for Defendant and Respondent.
Reed Smith, Paul D. Fogel, Dennis Peter Maio; Richard A. Munisteri; Ted Fikre; and Turner D. Madden for Live Nation, Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc., and International Association of Assembly Managers, Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Bingham McCutchen, James L. Hunt and Dale E. Barnes, Jr., for Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League and the National Hockey League as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Gus P. Coldebella, Acting General Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, Andrew J. Puglia Levy, Deputy General Counsel, Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jonathan F. Cohn, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Douglas N. Letter, Christopher J. Walker and Thomas M. Bondy for The United States of America as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Supreme Court of California.
OPINION
CHIN, J.
In 2005, the San Francisco 49ers, Ltd. (49ers), began implementing a policy of the National Football League (NFL) requiring all patrons at their football games to submit to a patdown search before entering the stadium. Plaintiffs claim the policy violates their state constitutional right to privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.) The case has come to us after the superior court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the action. On appeal after...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
