Noonan

Noonan v. Bowen CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 27, 2014C071764California3,148 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 8/27/14 Noonan v. Bowen CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento) ----

EDWARD NOONAN et al., C071764

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 34201280001048CUWMGDS) v.

DEBRA BOWEN, as Secretary of State, etc., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

In Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647 (Keyes), this court held that the California Secretary of State “does not have a duty to investigate and determine whether a presidential candidate meets [the] eligibility requirements of the United States Constitution.” (Id. at p. 651-652.) Hardly a year after the Keyes decision, plaintiffs Edward C. Noonan and Pamela Barnett (among others) commenced this mandamus proceeding, seeking a writ of mandate to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.