§Why CasetextPricing

For the People Theatres of N.Y. Inc.,, Plaintiff, JGJ Merchandise Corp.,, Respondent,v.City of New York, et al., Appellants.---------------------------------Ten's Cabaret, Inc.,, et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, et al., Appellants.

Brief

34 Cited authorities

  1. Ward v. Rock Against Racism

    491 U.S. 781 (1989)   Cited 2,858 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the validity of a provision challenged on an as-applied basis "depends on the relation it bears to the overall problem the government seeks to correct, not on the extent to which it furthers the government's interests in an individual case"

  2. City of Erie v. Pap's A. M.

    529 U.S. 277 (2000)   Cited 1,057 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an ordinance barring full nudity at nude dancing clubs does not violate the First Amendment

  3. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

    535 U.S. 234 (2002)   Cited 944 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding invalid the challenged provision of the CPPA because it “cover[ed] materials beyond the categories recognized in Ferber and Miller”

  4. Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.

    475 U.S. 41 (1986)   Cited 1,424 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that local governments may enact zoning ordinances against adult movie theaters to curb negative "secondary effects"

  5. United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.

    529 U.S. 803 (2000)   Cited 820 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statute was content based because it “applies only to channels primarily dedicated to sexually explicit adult programming or other programming that is indecent”

  6. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.

    564 U.S. 552 (2011)   Cited 504 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on "speech result[ing] from an economic motive" is not "a mere commercial regulation"

  7. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley

    408 U.S. 92 (1972)   Cited 1,333 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding a law was content-based where it prohibited nonlabor-related picketing at a place of employment

  8. City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.

    535 U.S. 425 (2002)   Cited 409 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "'[t]he First Amendment does not require a city, before enacting . . . an [adult entertainment secondary effects] ordinance to conduct new studies or produce evidence independent of that already generated by other cities, so long as whatever evidence the city relies upon is reasonably believed to be relevant to the problem that the city addresses.'"

  9. Carey v. Brown

    447 U.S. 455 (1980)   Cited 733 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that ordinance violated equal protection where it banned all residential picketing except picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute

  10. Clark v. City of Lakewood

    259 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 235 times
    Holding that the owner of an adult entertainment establishment had overbreadth standing to pursue a First Amendment challenge against provisions of an ordinance that required the employees of such establishments to obtain a license because the licensing scheme — although not directly applicable to the owner — threatened his business's viability

  11. Section 500.1 - General requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1   Cited 1 times

    (a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1 -a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation