Harris and Ruden v. Superior Court; Okun v. Superior Court , 1980-1982
Scope and Contents
The legal advocacy work of the ACLU-NC is represented in over 1,000 case files, dated between 1934 and 1974. Arranged alphabetically by the client’s last name, these files contain correspondence, legal documents, and attorneys’ working notes for a broad range of civil liberties cases in California. ACLU-NC files for cases argued before the United States Supreme Court are found throughout the series and include, notably, the Frank Conner due process case (1939-1941); the Korematsu and Endo cases, which challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066 (1942-1946); the Louis Hartman loyalty/security case (1958-1963); and the free speech cases of William Ehlert and Edmund di Tullio (1964-1971). Other notable clients whose cases are represented in the collection include Warren Billings, Harry Bridges, Angela Davis, Fred Edwards, and Anita Whitney.
Thirty-one boxes of unprocessed case files, dated between 1971 and 1989, were added to the collection in 2011. They were procesed in 2019, and organized by name of case, including both the names of the plaintiffs and the defendants, and the dates during which the cases took place.
Dates
- 1980-1982
Access Restrictions
Some case files in this series are restricted.
Extent
From the Sub-Series: 42.5 linear feet (33 record storage cartons and 3 legal document boxes)
Language of Materials
English
General
Here, the ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners Erwin Okun, Joanne Ruden, and Betty H. Harris against Beverly Hills real estate developers Maple Properties. The lawsuit was begun in September of 1979 and concerns a 1977 land purchase by Maple Properties of 10 acres of property in Beverly Hills, with the intent to build condominiums. The property adjoined city owned parcels of land, and the developer had discussed with the city the possibility of a mutually beneficial land exchange, so that each would own contiguous parcels of land. Following this exchange, Maple Properties would build condiminiums on all of the available land.
The plaintiffs, opposed to the construction of these luxury condominiums, circulated a petition to place the ordinance allowing construction on the ballot, which the electorate then rejected. The defendants accuse the plaintiffs of deliberate sabotage, as well as libel and slander. The cause of these accusations was a letter written to the Los Angeles Times by Harris and various others, and published on January 28, 1979. The letter alleges that the plaintiff "...had (a) conspired for a period of years with Councilman Stone to cause the City to abandon its water well system in order to make the water treatment plant obsolete and allow [plaintiff] to acquire the property on which the water treatment plant was located for [plaintiff's] private gain and (b) conspired to commit, and did commit, the crimes of bribery and corruption."
The court, rejecting the defendants claims, writes that the letter is merely opinion and not necessarily libelous. They write: "An essential element of libel ... is that the publication in question must contain a false statement of fact. ... This requirement ... is constitutionally based." They also write that "the First Amendment protects even sharp attacks on the character, motives, or moral qualifications of "a public officer or ... an active participant in a labor dispute." They conclude: "The implication that he and other council members were motivated by selfish interest rather than the public good is well within the bounds of protected political debate."
Repository Details
Part of the California Historical Society Repository