The ASUCD Court preserves its past cases here, in an effort to preserve precedent and prevent future conflicts.

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #42

Baraona v. GO Slate

Fall 2007 -- A case regarding the use of ASUCD logos on the "GO" website.

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #38

Ostrowski v. Rivera II

Winter 2007 -- A case alleging that Rivera, as chair of IAC, failed to hire more than one alternate for his commission, as required by the bylaws.

Majority Opinion	Concurring Opinion:	Minority Opinion
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

The Case was dismissed as it was filed past the sixty day statute of limitations.

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #32

Nanakul v. SGAO

Winter 2006 -- A case alleging that the "Student Bill of Rights," passed in Winter 2004, is not available online or in physical form, in violation of Senate Bill # 48 (2003), which requires legislation be made available online.

Majority Opinion	Concurring Opinion:	Minority Opinion
Plaintiff's Brief(s) Nanakul	Defendant's Brief(s) Tucker	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

The Student Bill of Rights is now available attached to the ASUCD Constitution.

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #31

Van Schoelandt v. ASUCD Senate

Winter 2006 -- Alleging that the closed session which the ASUCD Senate had on January 12th, 2006, in which they wrote Senate Bill # 36 (2006) was not authorized by the ASUCD Constitution or bylaws and was in fact in violation of the constitution.

Majority Opinion Fricke et al.	Concurring Opinion: (none)	Minority Opinion (none)
Plaintiff's Brief(s) Van Schoelandt	Defendant's Brief(s) Salem and Russell	Amicus curie briefs (none)
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

This case is currently open, as the minutes of the ASUCD Senate closed session remain unavailable for redaction.

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #30

Laabs v. ASUCD Senate

Winter 2006 - Filed in response to urgent legislation used to seat candidates, the Plaintiff alleged that the Senate violated separation of powers, by nullifying court cases affected by retroactive legislation.  The bylaw was repealed at the following Senate meeting, and the Plaintiff withdrew his case.

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #29

Laabs v. Stone (The California Aggie)

Fall 2005 - Winter 2006 - The complaint alleged that the defendant had moved The California Aggie's website away from Creative Media in violation of Government Code 703.  The defendant asserted the media's independent oversight from the Campus Media Board.

Majority Opinion Fricke et al.	Concurring Opinion	Minority Opinion Harney (appended)
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #28

Harney v. Leathers

Fall 2005 - The complaint filed by Plaintiff Harney, alleges that the ASUCD Elections Committee violated Article II, Section 4 of the ASUCD Constitution, and Section 104 of the Government Codes, by failing to properly perform a disciplinary verification with Student Judicial Affairs (SJA).

Majority Opinion - sealed -	Concurring Opinion (none)	Minority Opinion (none)
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

The verdict of this case has been sealed by order of C.J. Fricke.

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #26 and #27

Van Schoelandt v. Elections Committee

Fall 2005 - Both of these cases were withdrawn by the Plaintiff before they could be considered, though they dealt with the same topic as Case #28 above.  It should be noted that Van Schoelandt was a member of the Elections Committee at the time he filed the complaints.

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #24 and #25

Siminitus v. Champagne

Spring 2004 -

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #23

Ahmed-Falol & Smith vs. Henry et al.

In ASUCD Student Court Case #23, we are faced with the claim that Commissioners of the Internal Affairs Commission (IAC) were unfairly replaced. The investigation as to why this occurred and how it could be avoided in the future required review of the policies and behaviours of a number of ASUCD bodies.

Majority Opinion Fricke et al.	Concurring Opinion Zheng et al.	Minority Opinion (none)
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #22

Thomas et Alii v. Pérez

Majority Opinion Fricke et al.	Concurring Opinion (none)	Minority Opinion (none)
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #20

Spahr et al. vs. ASUCD Senate et al.

Fall 2002-Winter 2003 - The plaintiffs allege that the "Student Expansion Initiative" ballot measure was not added to the Fall election ballot within the three weeks necessary, therefore its passage would be invalid.

Majority Opinion Turner et al.	Concurring Opinion Fricke (stricken)	Minority Opinion (none)
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

The Court ruled this measure unconsitutional, which essentially had no effect as it was the UCD Administration's final authorization which actually increased student fees.

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #19

Birman and Fricke v. Canales

Spring 2002 - The complaint alleged that the defendants had unconstituionally hired for the Internal Affairs Commission, because there was one Senator absent from the hiring committee.  However, the Government Codes allowed one person to be absent, and the court ruled that this statute was in fact constitutional; writ of certiorari was denied.

Majority Opinion	Concurring Opinion	Minority Opinion
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari Saddiqui et al. (denied)	Minutes

Plaintiff Fricke, having been denied a seat on IAC, became Chief Justice the following year.  Plaintiff Birman, having been denied a seat on IAC, went on to instigate the Lamargate scandal.

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #18

Mercy et al. v. Elections Committee

Winter 2001 - Not truly one complaint but several, Plaintiff Drew Mercy represents the lead in the case against LEAD, suing over several alleged instances of campaigning indoors and near computer labs on election days.

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #17

Spurgeon and Mercy v. Ponce and Craemer

Spring 2000 - ASUCD officially opposed Propostion 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, through a Senate Resolution.  The Plaintiff alleged that this is unconstitutional, as the Standing Rules only allow resolutions to promote the "student welfare".

Majority Opinion Chan et al.	Concurring Opinion (none)	Minority Opinion Smith and Cheng
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

SR #9 was declared unconstitutional, though the minority offers an insightful opinion.  The Senate thereafter passed a bill so that they could in fact take stances on political issues (see the added second sentence in Bylaw 800C).

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #15

Nguyen v. "Checks and Balances" Amendment

Spring 1996 - Nguyen and Bloom are at it again, this time alleging that the defendant did not obtain prior written permission to use five endorsements in various campaign propaganda for the Checks and Balances Amendment, which was approved by voters by an impressive margin.

Majority Opinion Kern et al.	Concurring Opinion	Minority Opinion Hure (attached)
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

The Court decided against considering each flyer a seperate violation, a counterintuitive but fun opinion that would have generated at least twenty-five thousand (25000) violation points.  Instead, they accepted affidavits from three of the five, saying that they endorsed the amendment, and assigned two (2) violation points for the remaining endorsements used without permission.  The case was appealed by Nguyen, but the Court rejected it on the basis that Nguyen's opinion isn't actually new evidence.

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #14

Bloom v. Bronson et al.

Fall 1995 - An alternative publication, The Informer, published an endorsement of several candidates.  The plaintiff alleged that this publication should be included in the campaign expenditures of the candidates due to the connection of those publisher with the campaign.

Majority Opinion Kern et al.	Concurring Opinion (none)	Minority Opinion (none)
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

The case was dismissed, though the Court felt it should make certain guidelines for the future.  AS PAPERs are now required to treat candidates equally if they endorse; however, there is no publication review board other than the media board.  John Reedy contines to operate Media Works in Davis.

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #13

Hoskinson v. Bloom

Fall 1995 - The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, Vice President Bloom, did not have the right to cast a tie-breaking vote under the ASUCD Constitution.

Majority Opinion Kern et al.	Concurring Opinion	Minority Opinion
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

Given the definition of how an absence counts as an abstention which essentially counts as a negative vote, the Court ruled in favor of the defendant.  This wierdness in the Constitution was finally dealt with in 2006 with Constitutional Amendment #11, which is on the ballot in November 2006.

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #12

Bloom v. ASUCD Senate

Spring 1995 - The plaintiff alleged that the manner in which Constituional Amendment #1, which would have allowed B&F to amend the operating budget, passed the Senate unconstitutionally.  In a particularly lollable action, the Senate preemptively overrided a presidential veto, which came soon after.

Majority Opinion	Concurring Opinion	Minority Opinion
Plaintiff's Brief(s) Bloom	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

We really don't have any more documents on this case, but CA #1 definitely didn't get added to the Constitution.  We're just going to assume that it failed at the ballot until we can get some confirmation.  This would of course make the case moot.

ASUCD Supreme Court Case #11

Spitz v. Fowler

Spring 1995 - The plaintiff was the target of a recall petition taken out by the defendant; the plaintiff alleges that such petition was approved with improperly biased wording by the Internal Affairs Commission.

The case proceeded to mediation between the parties, facilitated by ASUCD President Peter Nyugen.  The mediation dealt with the root cause of the recall petition, whereupon Senator Spitz, the plaintiff, agreed to undergo counseling for his behaviour from Student Judicial Affairs in exchange for withdrawal of the recall petition.

Student Judicial Board Case #10

Watanabe v. Elections Committee

Fall 1994 -

Majority Opinion Delker et al.	Concurring Opinion (none)	Minority Opinion Freitas and Malek (attached)
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

Student Judicial Board Case #9

Barrick v. Executive Council et al.

Spring 1994 - The plaintiff alleges inaccuracies in the Student Activities and Services Initiative (SASI), which led to an increase in student fees for the Athletics Program.

Majority Opinion Alessandro and Makarewyzc et al. (dismissed)	Concurring Opinion Delker (attached)	Minority Opinion (none)
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

The case was dismissed due to procedural error by the plaintiff, and to a lesser degree, the SJB.

Student Judicial Board Case #8

Aiello v. Donnell and Diehl

Winter 1994 - The court wades into the world of soft money, as an A-frame sign was not reported on the defendants' campaign expenditure form.

Majority Opinion Malek et al.	Concurring Opinion Delker and Choi (attached)	Minority Opinion (none)
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

As the sign was made without the knowledge of the candidates, the court found in favor of the defendants.

Student Judicial Board Case #2

Storrs v. Humphrey

Winter 1994 - The plaintiff alleged that Council Candidate Humphrey failed to properly report expenses on his expenditure form by omitting expenses.

Majority Opinion Delker et al.	Concurring Opinion (none)	Minority Opinion Freitas and Malek (attached)
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

Humphrey was assesed six (6) violation points, though the minority opinion believed it should be ten (10) violation points.

Student Judicial Board Case #1

Storrs v. Broomand

Winter 1994 - The plaintiff alleged that Council Candidate Broomand failed to properly report expenses on his expenditure form by not including sales tax and failing to report nails used in the construction of sandwich boards.

Majority Opinion Malek et al.	Concurring Opinion (none)	Minority Opinion Choi (attached)
Plaintiff's Brief(s)	Defendant's Brief(s)	Amicus curie briefs
Writ of Certiorari	Minutes

Illya Broomand was assessed one violation point and was allowed to take office.