City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. case brief summary
475 U.S. 41 (1986)
CASE FACTS
Appellee adult motion picture theaters sought a declaratory judgment that a zoning ordinance of appellant city violated U.S. Constitutional Amendment I and U.S. Constitutional XIV. The zoning ordinance prohibited adult motion picture theaters from locating within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school. The appeals court reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of appellant, finding that the ordinance constituted a substantial restriction on U.S. Constitutional Amendment I interests, that appellant had improperly relied on the experiences of other cities, and that appellant failed to establish the existence of a substantial governmental interest.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the judgment of the appeals court finding appellant city's zoning ordinance unconstitutional because the ordinance did not ban appellee adult motion picture theaters altogether but merely provided where such theaters could not be located and was, therefore, a form of time, place, and manner regulation. Further, appellant had a substantial interest in regulating the secondary effects of such theaters.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
475 U.S. 41 (1986)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant city sought review of a
judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit which found unconstitutional appellant's zoning ordinance
prohibiting appellee adult motion picture theaters from locating
within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, single- or multiple-family
dwelling, church, park, or school. Appellant contended that the
ordinance was a "content neutral" time, place, and manner
regulation.CASE FACTS
Appellee adult motion picture theaters sought a declaratory judgment that a zoning ordinance of appellant city violated U.S. Constitutional Amendment I and U.S. Constitutional XIV. The zoning ordinance prohibited adult motion picture theaters from locating within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school. The appeals court reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of appellant, finding that the ordinance constituted a substantial restriction on U.S. Constitutional Amendment I interests, that appellant had improperly relied on the experiences of other cities, and that appellant failed to establish the existence of a substantial governmental interest.
DISCUSSION
- The Court reversed the judgment of the appeals court because appellant's ordinance did not substantially restrict U.S. Constitutional Amendment I interests, appellant was not required to show specific adverse impact from the operation of adult theaters but could rely on the experiences of other cities, and the restriction imposed by the ordinance was "content neutral" and necessary to prevent the secondary effects of such theaters.
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the judgment of the appeals court finding appellant city's zoning ordinance unconstitutional because the ordinance did not ban appellee adult motion picture theaters altogether but merely provided where such theaters could not be located and was, therefore, a form of time, place, and manner regulation. Further, appellant had a substantial interest in regulating the secondary effects of such theaters.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment