The Criminalization of Homelessness: An Overview of Litigation Theories and Strategies
|
|
- Eugene Williamson
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1
2 Copyright 1995 by National Clearinghouse for Legal Services, Inc. All rights reserved. The Criminalization of Homelessness: An Overview of Litigation Theories and Strategies By Maria Foscarinis and Richard Herz. Maria Foscarinis is the executive director and Richard Herz is the civil rights monitor at the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, 918 F St. NW, Suite 412, Washington, DC 20004; (202) I. Introduction In recent years, a growing number of cities have passed or enforced antihomeless laws or policies. /1/ Actions taken against homeless people include restrictions on begging and homeless persons use of public places, police "sweeps" designed to remove homeless people from specific areas, selective enforcement of generally applicable laws against homeless people, and restrictions on providers of services to homeless people. Many cities employ combinations of these actions. At the same time, city resources to help homeless people are woefully inadequate. This article surveys recent case law resulting from suits challenging these laws and policies. The article focuses on important rulings relating to restrictions on panhandling and to prohibitions on sitting; performing necessary, involuntary behaviors; or simply remaining in public places. It then discusses litigation and nonlitigation strategies to prevent or reverse the adoption of such policies. II. Case Law A. Panhandling Recent court rulings have relied on the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution and on state constitutional provisions. 1. First Amendment A threshold question is whether the law at issue affects expression, which is protected, or conduct, which is not. In Young v. New York City Transit Authority, the Second Circuit rejected a First Amendment challenge to the New York City subway system s prohibition on begging. /2/ In so ruling, the court reasoned that the law was not directed at protected speech but rather at conduct, which is independent of any particularized message. /3/ In Loper v. New York City Police Department, a different panel of the Second Circuit struck down a law prohibiting loitering for the purpose of begging. /4/ The court concluded that begging is protected charitable solicitation and that the law was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. /5/
3 Cities currently adopting antipanhandling ordinances typically limit the scope of those ordinances to aggressive panhandling or panhandling in certain places, almost certainly as a result of the above-cited cases. /6/ A number of courts have ruled on such laws. In Roulette v. City of Seattle, /7/ the court held that, although begging is protected speech, the challenged ordinance, which prohibited "begging with intent to intimidate," was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad when given the limiting construction that it applied only to threats. /8/ In Patton v. Baltimore City, the district court noted that, although panhandling is charitable solicitation fully protected by the First Amendment, the city s law did not violate that amendment because it was narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests in protecting citizens and promoting tourism. /9/ 2. Equal Protection Clause In Patton, the court also held that, because the law prohibited only aggressive panhandling and not all aggressive solicitation, it made a content-based distinction that implicated, though it did not violate, the First Amendment, a fundamental right. Because the city could not demonstrate a compelling state interest in making the content-based distinction, the court held that the law was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. /10/ In Blair v. Shanahan, the court held that a blanket ban on panhandling violated the Equal Protection Clause. /11/ It reasoned that the law s distinction between beggars and those who initiate conversations not involving requests for money was content-based discrimination that was not narrowly tailored to serve substantial state interests in prohibiting threats. /12/ 3. State Constitutions Some cities laws regulate all aggressive solicitation as opposed to just aggressive panhandling. In Berkeley Community Health Project v. City of Berkeley, /13/ and Church of the Soldiers of the Cross of Christ v. City of Riverside, /14/ the courts held that antisolicitation ordinances in Berkeley and Riverside, California, were unconstitutional under the California Constitution. /15/ B. Sitting A few cities have attempted to rid their downtowns of "undesirables" by prohibiting sitting or lying down on a sidewalk in a commercial area during certain times of the day. Two federal district courts have ruled on the constitutionality of such laws. In Roulette, the court upheld Seattle s sidewalk ordinance. /16/ The court held that the ordinance did not violate plaintiffs First Amendment rights because sitting or lying are not expressive conduct and because people can still exercise free speech rights without sitting or lying down in violation of the ordinance. /17/ In Berkeley Community Health Project, however, the court preliminarily enjoined that city s prohibition on sitting. Finding that sitting itself can be expressive conduct and that some plaintiffs ability to engage in speech depended on being able to sit, the court held that there was a substantial likelihood that plaintiffs would prevail at trial on their First Amendment claim.
4 C. Public Place Restrictions A number of rulings have addressed city policies that ban or restrict public conduct in which homeless people typically have no choice but to engage, such as sleeping in public. These cases have involved a number of legal theories. 1. Eighth Amendment District courts in Pottinger v. City of Miami /18/ and Johnson v. City of Dallas /19/ found that homeless people in Miami and Dallas had no choice but to be in public places. The courts relied on evidence that shelter beds were insufficient, by far, to meet homeless persons need and on expert testimony that people rarely voluntarily choose to be homeless. They noted that sleeping, eating, and bathing -- the activities at issue -- are harmless, life-sustaining behaviors that the plaintiffs had no choice but to perform in public; criminalizing such necessary, involuntary conduct imposed cruel and unusual punishment on homeless persons, in violation of the Eighth Amendment and consistent with the Supreme Court s decisions in Powell v. Texas /20/ and Robinson v. California. /21/ In contrast, the district courts in Patton /22/ and Joyce v. City of San Francisco /23/ rejected similar claims because they concluded that homelessness is not a status and, in any event, the policies at issue targeted behavior. These courts focused on the distinction between status and conduct, whereas the Johnson and Pottinger courts were persuaded by the involuntary nature of the prohibited behavior. /24/ 2. Right to Privacy Plaintiffs have also argued that their right to privacy protects the performance of essential activities in public. The courts in Patton /25/ and Pottinger /26/ both rejected these claims. 3. Equal Protection The courts in Joyce, /27/ Johnson, /28/ and Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for the Town of Morristown /29/ all rejected claims that homeless people constitute a suspect class. However, the courts have been divided on equal protection claims that involve fundamental rights. In Joyce the court rejected an equal protection claim because it held that there is no fundamental right to sleep. /30/ In Patton the court refused to dismiss plaintiffs equal protection claim. The court held that if plaintiffs could prove at trial that the city had a practice of directing only panhandlers to stop soliciting, and if the city could not show that this policy -- which would implicate the fundamental right to freedom of expression -- met a compelling interest, plaintiffs would prevail. /31/
5 Plaintiffs have also argued that the right to travel is the fundamental right at issue. This argument asserts that arresting homeless people for public sleeping or performing other necessary acts in public has the primary purpose and actual effect of penalizing and deterring homeless people from migrating to or remaining in a city since they cannot do either without facing arrest. The Pottinger court accepted this argument as an alternate basis for enjoining the city s policy. /32/ The court in Joyce, however, rejected this rationale /33/ and noted that the Supreme Court has applied strict scrutiny under a right-to-travel analysis only where the law in question facially discriminates between residents and nonresidents. /34/ 4. Due Process In Streetwatch v. amtrak, the district court enjoined amtrak from continuing its policy of arresting or ejecting any person who appeared homeless from Penn Station in the absence of evidence that such person had committed any crime. /35/ The court found that amtrak s rules of conduct vested too much discretion in amtrak police and therefore were void for vagueness in violation of due process protections. The court also held that because plaintiffs freedom of movement was implicated, defendants were required to meet a higher standard. The court concluded that defendants had acted arbitrarily and that homeless people had the right to be in Penn Station without being confronted by the police. III. Strategies The above review of the case law is intended to serve as a road map to the legal landscape, not to suggest that litigation is necessarily the most effective way to counter antihomeless policies. In fact, while in some cases litigation may be necessary or unavoidable, confrontation with cities may also serve to undermine relationships with city and business leaders that are necessary to proactive solutions to homelessness. In general, before litigating, advocates should try to convince public officials that the problem of destitute people residing in public places can be dealt with in less vindictive and more constructive ways. For example, in Nashville, a local judge helped persuade a downtown merchants association to withdraw a proposed aggressive begging law by explaining that various existing laws already covered essentially the same conduct and by noting that homelessness is a social issue that should be dealt with in ways other than antibegging legislation. The merchants association and local advocates then worked together on alternative approaches to dealing with downtown Nashville s homeless. Outreach workers began working with downtown merchants to teach them better to recognize behaviors that require social services as opposed to law-enforcement responses. Moreover, the Chamber of Commerce and the chief of police began working with advocates and homeless individuals to develop a plan to address the inordinate amount of street violence homeless people face in Nashville. Another example of a proactive approach is the "Miami meal tax." Dade County, prompted at least in part by the Pottinger decision, adopted a 1-percent tax on restaurant meals at restaurants grossing over $400,000 per year in order to fund facilities and services for homeless people. The tax went
6 into effect in October The meal-tax plan contemplates funding emergency shelters, transitional and permanent housing, job training, and substance-abuse treatment. Although the allocation of funding has been controversial, the tax provides an excellent example of how a local government can raise a significant amount of money for needed services in a relatively painless way. Where litigation must be brought, advocates should note that, by their very nature, these cases require a strong factual record. /36/ Victims testimony and arrest records are particularly useful in documenting incidents of harassment and of disparate treatment given to those people who appear homeless and those who do not. /37/ This type of investigation can be both difficult and lengthy. Moreover, victims may be unwilling to come forward or to participate in litigation, and it may be difficult to keep in contact with them as litigation proceeds. /38/ IV. Conclusion The recent increase in antihomeless laws and ordinances presents a major threat to homeless people and a difficult challenge for their advocates. While litigation has led to some notable victories against intransigent cities, it is lengthy, costly, difficult, and speculative. Advocates should attempt to work with cities to discourage punitive approaches and to promote constructive solutions before litigation becomes necessary. Footnotes /1/ For a detailed discussion of this trend, see National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, No Homeless People Allowed (Dec. 1994). /2/ Young v. New York City Transit Auth., 903 F.2d 146 (2d Cir. 1990). /3/ The court also relied on the special exigencies it found were created by begging in the confined quarters of the subway. /4/ Loper v. New York City Police Dep t, 999 F.2d 699 (2d Cir. 1993). /5/ The Loper court also distinguished that law, which prohibited begging anywhere in the city, from the prohibition on begging in the subway at issue in Young, 903 F.2d 146. Similar results have also been obtained against blanket bans on begging in district courts in Blair v. Shanahan, 775 F. Supp (N.D. Cal. 1991), aff d, 38 F.3d 1514 (9th Cir. 1994) (Clearinghouse No. 47,181), and Heathcott v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Officers, CV-S LDG (D. Nev. 1994) (Clearinghouse No. 50,829). /6/ Some cities do, however, continue to enforce existing blanket prohibitions on all panhandling. E.g., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, continues to enforce an ordinance prohibiting all solicitation of funds except for solicitation done by an employee of a recognized charity. City of Milwaukee Ordinances Sec
7 /7/ Roulette v. City of Seattle, 850 F. Supp (W.D. Wash. 1994) (Clearinghouse No. 49,483). /8/ The court did strike down a section of the ordinance that listed circumstances to consider in determining whether there was an intent to intimidate. Since the court had limited construction of the ordinance to prohibit only "threats" and since the section described some speech that was clearly protected, the court found that the section rendered the law both vague and overbroad and struck it down. Id. at /9/ Patton v. Baltimore City, Civil No. S , slip op. at , (D. Md. Aug. 19, 1994) (Clearinghouse No. 50,831). /10/ Id. at /11/ Blair, 775 F. Supp /12/ Id. at The Patton court, however, specifically rejected the comparison between begging and conversations not involving requests for money. These cases are not necessarily incompatible, however. The law in Blair dealt with nonaggressive as well as aggressive begging, and the court found that, because the mere act of begging is not a reliable proxy for threats, the law was not narrowly tailored. The Blair court noted that "the legislature may take [the difference between intimidating begging and solicitations that do not include requests for money] into account in drafting a statute intended to reduce the perceived evil of street intimidation for money." Id. /13/ Berkeley Community Health Project v. City of Berkeley, No. C CW (N.D. Cal. 1995). /14/ Church of the Soldiers of the Cross of Christ v. City of Riverside, No. CV LGB (C.D. Cal. 1995). /15/ Employing an analysis similar to that in Blair, the courts in Berkeley Community Health Project and Church of the Soldiers of the Cross of Christ ruled that the laws at issue impermissibly regulated speech based on its content because they distinguished between those speakers who ask for money and those who do not. Although decided under the California Constitution, these cases, along with Blair, suggest possible arguments under the Federal Constitution. /16/ Roulette, 850 F. Supp /17/ The court also rejected plaintiffs substantive due process, vagueness, and equal protection claims. It held that the ordinance was rationally related to the city s legitimate interests in ensuring pedestrian safety and protecting the economic vitality of commercial areas and, moreover, that the prohibition and the enumerated exceptions were sufficiently specific. It found no facial discrimination and no evidence that the city council was targeting homeless people. The court s ruling on the sidewalk ordinance is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, No /18/ Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551, (S.D. Fla. 1992) (Clearinghouse No. 48,663).
8 /19/ Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F. Supp. 344, 350 (N.D. Tex. 1994). /20/ Powell v. Texas, 393 U.S. 898 (1968) (Clearinghouse No. 906). /21/ Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). /22/ Patton, slip op. at /23/ Joyce v. City of San Francisco, 846 F. Supp. 843 (N.D. Cal. 1994). /24/ The Johnson court noted that because involuntary conduct such as sleeping in public is inseparable from the being homeless, penalizing such conduct is tantamount to penalizing being homeless, or the "status" of homelessness. Johnson, 860 F. Supp. at 350. /25/ Patton, slip op. at 49. /26/ Pottinger, 810 F. Supp. at /27/ Joyce, 846 F. Supp /28/ Johnson, 860 F. Supp. at 355. /29/ Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for the Town of Morristown, 958 F.2d 1242 (3d Cir. 1992). /30/ Joyce, 846 F. Supp. at 859. /31/ Patton, slip op. at /32/ Pottinger, 810 F. Supp. at /33/ Joyce, 846 F. Supp. at 860. /34/ A similar challenge to Seattle s sidewalk ordinance was also rejected by the court in Roulette, which held that there was no legislative record indicating a desire to expel plaintiffs from downtown and that the ordinance did not make it impossible for the plaintiffs to perform necessary acts downtown. /35/ Streetwatch v. amtrak, 94 CIV 4254 (CBM) (S.D.N.Y. 1995). /36/ Moreover, the relevant equal protection and Eighth Amendment theories are fundamentally "as-applied" challenges and must be specifically pleaded as such. In Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, No. S (Cal. Sup. Ct. Aug. 24, 1995) (Clearinghouse No. 49,238), the California Supreme Court rejected Eighth Amendment and right-to-travel challenges to Santa Ana s anticamping ordinance. The court somewhat strangely concluded that only a facial challenge had been raised and then held that the law was not invalid on its face.
9 /37/ An equal protection claim will almost certainly require a showing that the enforcement discriminatorily affects the exercise of a fundamental right. Such a claim also requires a showing of intent to discriminate against as well as a discriminatory impact on homeless people. Toward this end, any official documents, internal memoranda (particularly police department memoranda), or statements by city officials or employees that suggest an intent to harass or otherwise single out homeless people are extremely important. Minutes from city government meetings and the legislative history of relevant ordinances should be reviewed. In the absence of direct evidence of intent, plaintiffs will be faced with the difficult task of gathering evidence concerning the number and type of harassment incidents that is so compelling that intent can be inferred from the pattern and the context in which it arose. The same evidence that is relevant to intent obviously may be also relevant in showing that the discrimination was an official policy or custom of the city. /38/ For an overview of the considerations involved in bringing this type of lawsuit, see Benjamin S. Waxman, Fighting the Criminalization of Homelessness: Anatomy of an Institutional Anti- Homeless Lawsuit, 23 Stetson L. Rev. 467 (1994).
Shriver Center. July August Volume 41, Numbers 3 4
Shriver Center July August 2007 @ Volume 41, Numbers 3 4 Targeting the Homeless: Constructive Alternatives to Criminalization Measures in U.S. Cities By Tulin Ozdeger Tulin Ozdeger Civil Rights Staff Attorney
More informationWe Can Do Better: Anti-Homeless Ordinances as Violations of State Substantive Due Process Law
We Can Do Better: Anti-Homeless Ordinances as Violations of State Substantive Due Process Law How does it feel To be without a home Like a complete unknown Like a rolling stone? Bob Dylan 1 I. INTRODUCTION...1414
More informationCase 2:18-at Document 1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 1 of 12
Case :-at-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Laurance Lee, State Bar No. 0 Elise Stokes, State Bar No. Sarah Ropelato, State Bar No. th Street Sacramento, CA Telephone:
More informationProtecting Human Rights: Countering Criminalization of Homelessness and Promoting Constructive Alternatives
Protecting Human Rights: Countering Criminalization of Homelessness and Promoting Constructive Alternatives Tristia Bauman, National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Washington, D.C., DC Daniel Levy,
More informationCase 4:17-cv Document 36 Filed in TXSD on 08/21/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:17-cv-01473 Document 36 Filed in TXSD on 08/21/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION TAMMY KOHR, EUGENE STROMAN, and JANELLE GIBBS, on behalf of
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Constitutional Law And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question State X amended its anti-loitering
More informationTHE CRIMINALIZATION OF HOMELESSNESS SPRING 2018
THE CRIMINALIZATION OF HOMELESSNESS SPRING 2018 PROFESSOR STEPHEN J. SCHNABLY http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~schnably/homelessnessseminarsyllabus.html E-mail: schnably@law.miami.edu Office: G472 Tel.: 305-284-4817
More informationConstitutional Othering: Citizenship and the Insufficiency of Negative Rights-Based Challenges to Anti-Homeless Systems
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy Volume 6 Issue 2 Article 11 Spring 2011 Constitutional Othering: Citizenship and the Insufficiency of Negative Rights-Based Challenges to Anti-Homeless Systems
More informationCase 2:18-cv MCE-AC Document 26 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 8
Case :-cv-00-mce-ac Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Laurance Lee, State Bar No. 0 Elise Stokes, State Bar No. Sarah Ropelato, State Bar No. th Street Sacramento, CA
More informationRegulation of City Public Open Space & Its Constitutional and Enforcement Implications
Regulation of City Public Open Space & Its Constitutional and Enforcement Implications Topics Overview Regulation of Public Camping Regulation of Street Performances Possible Solutions Looking Ahead and
More informationENTERED December 28, 2017
Case 4:17-cv-01473 Document 69 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED
More informationFIGHTING THE CRIMINALIZATION OF HOMELESSNESS: ANATOMY OF AN INSTITUTIONAL ANTI-HOMELESS LAWSUIT Benjamin S. Waxman*
FIGHTING THE CRIMINALIZATION OF HOMELESSNESS: ANATOMY OF AN INSTITUTIONAL ANTI-HOMELESS LAWSUIT Benjamin S. Waxman* I. INTRODUCTION In November 1988, the Miami Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union
More informationCase 1:06-cv PCH Document 30 Filed 10/24/2006 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-22463-PCH Document 30 Filed 10/24/2006 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 06-22463-CIV-HUCK/SIMONTON CBS BROADCASTING, INC., AMERICAN BROADCASTING
More informationCase 1:14-cv CMA Document 15 Filed 03/21/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
Case 1:14-cv-00809-CMA Document 15 Filed 03/21/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 14-cv-00809-CMA DEBRA
More informationINTRODUCTION STATEMENT
Sullivan et al v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Doc. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 CLARK SULLIVAN, JAMES BLAIR, TOAN NGUYEN, ARIKA MILES, and ADAM BREDENBERG,
More informationCase 4:16-cv BRW Document 19 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION
Case 4:16-cv-00775-BRW Document 19 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MICHAEL ANDREW RODGERS and GLYNN DILBECK PLAINTIFFS VS. 4:16-CV-00775-BRW
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/28/17 1 of 14. PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Case: 1:17-cv-00410 Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/28/17 1 of 14. PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO JOHN MANCINI, and NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, Plaintiffs,
More informationNaturist Society advocates a "clothing optional" lifestyle and educates the public through writings, lectures, and public demonstrations
NATURIST SOCIETY v.fillyaw 858 F.Supp. 1559 (S.D. Fla. 1994) Naturist Society advocates a "clothing optional" lifestyle and educates the public through writings, lectures, and public demonstrations plaintiffs
More informationRegulating the Use and Occupancy of Open Space and Other Public Property and Protecting Constitutional Rights
Regulating the Use and Occupancy of Open Space and Other Public Property and Protecting Constitutional Rights Thursday, May 5, 2016 General Session; 2:15 4:15 p.m. Yibin Shen, Deputy City Attorney, Santa
More informationLEGAL SERVICES DIVISION OF LEGAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY STATE OF ALASKA
(907) 465-3867 or 465-2450 FAX (907) 465-2029 Mail Stop 31 01 LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION OF LEGAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY STATE OF ALASKA State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Deliveries
More informationJones v. City of Los Angeles: In Search of a Judicial Test of Anti-Homeless Ordinances
Law & Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice Volume 25 Issue 2 Article 6 2007 Jones v. City of Los Angeles: In Search of a Judicial Test of Anti-Homeless Ordinances Mary Boatright Follow this and
More informationNICHOLAS M. MAY I. INTRODUCTION
Fourth Amendment Challenges to Camping Ordinances: The Government Acquiescence Doctrine as a Legal Strategy to Force Legislative Solutions to Homelessness I. INTRODUCTION NICHOLAS M. MAY Municipal camping
More informationCase 2:12-cv Document 1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JUDGE:. Defendants.
Case 2:12-cv-02334 Document 1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KELSEY NICOLE MCCAULEY, a.k.a. KELSEY BOHN, Versus Plaintiff, NUMBER: 12-cv-2334 JUDGE:.
More informationCase 2:09-cv MCE -DAD Document 72 Filed 05/16/11 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
Case :0-cv-0-MCE -DAD Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 ADAM RICHARDS et al., v. Plaintiffs, COUNTY OF YOLO and YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF ED PRIETO, Defendants.
More informationCase 2:18-cv MCE-AC Document 17 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 11
Case :-cv-00-mce-ac Document Filed 0// Page of 0 LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Laurance Lee, State Bar No. 0 Elise Stokes, State Bar No. Sarah Ropelato, State Bar No. th Street Sacramento, CA Telephone:
More informationIn re Eichorn: The Long Awaited Implementation of the Necessity Defense in a Case of the Criminalization of Homelessness
American University Law Review Volume 50 Issue 1 Article 6 2000 In re Eichorn: The Long Awaited Implementation of the Necessity Defense in a Case of the Criminalization of Homelessness Antonia K. Fasanelli
More informationPolice Interaction with Homeless Persons Part II Panhandling and Use of Force
AELE Home Page --- Publications Menu --- Seminar Information Introduction ISSN 1935-0007 Cite as: 2008 (9) AELE Mo. L. J. 101 Civil Liability Law Section September, 2008 Police Interaction with Homeless
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-0-jat Document Filed Page of 0 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Dina Galassini, No. CV--0-PHX-JAT Plaintiff, ORDER v. Town of Fountain Hills, et al., Defendants.
More informationSENT VIA City of Durango City Council - Durango Mayor Sweetie Marbury -
August 24, 2018 SENT VIA Email City of Durango City Council - citycouncil@durangogov.org Durango Mayor Sweetie Marbury - SweetieMarbury@DurangoGov.org Re: Enforcement of Durango s Camping Ban Dear Mayor
More informationATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 1125 Washington Street SE PO Box Olympia WA
Rob McKenna 1125 Washington Street SE PO Box 40100 Olympia WA 98504-0100 Chair, Municipal Research Council 2601 Fourth A venue #800 Seattle, WA 98121-1280 Dear Chairman Hinkle: You recently inquired as
More informationRight To Rest Act 2018
Right To Rest Act 2018 Section I. Purpose. The State of ( ) and our nation have a long history of remedying laws that had discriminated against people based on their race, disability, and socioeconomic
More informationOCTOBER 2006 LAW REVIEW CARDBOARD HOMELESS SHELTER IN PARK. James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D James C. Kozlowski
CARDBOARD HOMELESS SHELTER IN PARK James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2006 James C. Kozlowski As described by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that laws
More informationCase 5:08-cv GTS-GJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/2008 Page 1 of 15
Case 5:08-cv-01211-GTS-GJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/2008 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAMES DEFERIO, v. Plaintiff, CITY OF ITHACA; EDWARD VALLELY, individually
More informationCase 1:16-cv LM Document 9 Filed 04/12/16 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Case 1:16-cv-00008-LM Document 9 Filed 04/12/16 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ) THERESA M. PETRELLO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Case. No. 1:16-cv-008 ) CITY OF
More informationLITIGATING IMMIGRATION DETENTION CONDITIONS 1
LITIGATING IMMIGRATION DETENTION CONDITIONS 1 Tom Jawetz ACLU National Prison Project 915 15 th St. N.W., 7 th Floor Washington, DC 20005 (202) 393-4930 tjawetz@npp-aclu.org I. The Applicable Legal Standard
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Mónica M. Ramírez* Cecillia D. Wang* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS PROJECT Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 1 Telephone: (1) -0 Facsimile: (1) -00 Email: mramirez@aclu.org Attorneys
More informationTWELFTH ANNUAL WILLIAMS INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION Index of Key Cases Contents
Contents Cases for Procurement Act Question (No. 1) 1. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). 2. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979). 3. Chamber of
More informationPanhandling Ordinances after Reed and Norton
Panhandling Ordinances after Reed and Norton Maria Davis, Assistant Counsel, League of Wisconsin Municipalities The First Amendment prohibits laws abridging the freedom of speech and is applicable to states
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:15-cv-01219-SDM-AAS Document 71 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID 1137 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION HOMELESS HELPING HOMELESS, INC., Plaintiff, v. CASE
More informationRecent Developments in First Amendment Law: Panhandling and Solicitation Regulations
Recent Developments in First Amendment Law: Panhandling and Solicitation Regulations Deborah Fox, Principal Margaret Rosequist, Of Counsel September 28, 20 September 30, 2016 First Amendment Protected
More informationCase 2:09-cv NBF Document 52 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00951-NBF Document 52 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW (ACORN,
More informationFourth Amendment Challenges to Camping Ordinances: A Legal Strategy to Force Legislative Solutions to Homelessness
Richmond Public Interest Law Review Volume 11 Issue 3 Article 2 1-1-2008 Fourth Amendment Challenges to Camping Ordinances: A Legal Strategy to Force Legislative Solutions to Homelessness Nicholas May
More informationCAN I GET SOME REMEDY?: CRIMINALIZATION OF HOMELESSNESS AND THE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY
CAN I GET SOME REMEDY?: CRIMINALIZATION OF HOMELESSNESS AND THE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY Eric S. Tars, Heather Maria Johnson, Tristia Bauman, and Maria Foscarinis * Many communities across
More informationIntroduction. REED V. TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZ. What do we have? What can you do?
Introduction REED V. TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZ. What do we have? An over broad standard Can effect any city Has far reaching consequences What can you do? Take safe steps, and Wait for the inevitable clarification.
More informationCITY of NOVI CITY COUNCIL
CITY of NOVI CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item 5 January 21,2014 SUBJECT: Approval of Ordinance No. 14-23.30 to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances at Chapter 22, "Offenses," Article I, "In General," Section
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 99-3434 Initiative & Referendum Institute; * John Michael; Ralph Muecke; * Progressive Campaigns; Americans * for Sound Public Policy; US Term
More informationREPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PLAINTIFFS TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, INC. and TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS LANDFILL, INC.
Case 1:11-cv-01070-LY Document 52 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, INC. and TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS LANDFILL, INC.,
More informationIn Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), the Supreme Court
LEGAL NOTE Does the First Amendment Render Nonpartisan Elections Meaningless? The Sixth Circuit s Carey v. Wolnitzek Decision MARK S. HURWITZ In Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002),
More informationMemorandum. Florida County Court Clerks. National Center for Lesbian Rights and Equality Florida. Date: December 23, 2014
Memorandum To: From: Florida County Court Clerks National Center for Lesbian Rights and Equality Florida Date: December 23, 2014 Re: Duties of Florida County Court Clerks Regarding Issuance of Marriage
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
Case 1:14-cv-00102-JMS-BMK Document 19 Filed 04/21/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 392 MARR JONES & WANG A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP RICHARD M. RAND 2773-0 Pauahi Tower 1003 Bishop Street, Suite 1500
More informationRIO GRANDE FOUNDATION v. CITY OF SANTA FE BACKGROUNDER
RIO GRANDE FOUNDATION v. CITY OF SANTA FE BACKGROUNDER Executive Summary One of the definitive freedoms of our constitutional system is the right to freely express one s opinions to educate the public
More informationFOURTH AMENDMENT CHALLENGES TO "CAMPING ORDINANCES": A LEGAL STRATEGY TO FORCE LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS TO HOMELESSNESS.
FOURTH AMENDMENT CHALLENGES TO "CAMPING ORDINANCES": A LEGAL STRATEGY TO FORCE LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS TO HOMELESSNESS Nicholas May" I. INTRODUCTION Municipal "camping ordinances" typically regulate or prohibit
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHN DOE #1-5 and MARY DOE, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 12-11194 RICHARD SNYDER and COL. KRISTE ETUE, Defendants. / OPINION
More informationNOTICES. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY [OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 96-l]
NOTICES OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL [OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 96-l] Department of Public Welfare; Enforceability of Durational Residency and Citizenship Requirement of Act 1996-35 December 9, 1996 Honorable
More informationJANUARY 2019 LAW REVIEW CITY RESTRICTED PARK FOOD SHARING WITH HOMELESS
CITY RESTRICTED PARK FOOD SHARING WITH HOMELESS James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2018 James C. Kozlowski In the case of Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.3d 11235, 2018 U.S.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF HAWAII FOUNDATION LOIS K. PERRIN # 8065 P.O. Box 3410 Honolulu, Hawaii 96801 Telephone: (808) 522-5900 Facsimile: (808) 522-5909 Email: lperrin@acluhawaii.org Attorney
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Constitutional Law And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question The Legislature of State
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. Case No. 07-CR-0 KENNETH ROBINSON Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER Defendant Kenneth Robinson pleaded guilty
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Burget v. Capital West Securities Inc Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA GRANT BURGET, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CIV-09-1015-M CAPITAL WEST SECURITIES, INC.,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 17, 2003 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 17, 2003 Session WILLIAM H. JOHNSON d/b/a SOUTHERN SECRETS BOOKSTORE, ET AL. v. CITY OF CLARKSVILLE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery
More informationCase 3:16-cv VC Document 91 Filed 02/20/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 3:16-cv-06535-VC Document 91 Filed 02/20/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IMDB.COM, INC., v. Plaintiff, XAVIER BECERRA, Defendant SCREEN ACTORS GUILD-AMERICAN
More information.. ' ORDINANCE NO
.. ' ORDINANCE NO. 171664 An ordinance adding section 41.59 to Article I of Chapter IV of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to prohibit aggressive soliciting. WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Council in enacting
More informationDe Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1990)
Page 1144 912 F.2d 1144 Steven M. De LONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael HENNESSEY, Respondent-Appellee. Steven M. De LONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Ruth MANSFIELD; Gloria Gonzales; Patricia Denning;
More informationPart Description 1 10 pages 2 Exhibit Consent Decree 3 Affidavit Knedler 4 Affidavit Harris 5 Affidavit Earl 6 Affidavit Redpath
Libertarian Party of Ohio et al v. Husted, Docket No. 2:13-cv-00953 (S.D. Ohio Sept 25, 2013), Court Docket Part Description 1 10 pages 2 Exhibit Consent Decree 3 Affidavit Knedler 4 Affidavit Harris 5
More informationCourt of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-17-00366-CR NO. 09-17-00367-CR EX PARTE JOSEPH BOYD On Appeal from the 1A District Court Tyler County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 13,067 and
More informationMontana Cannabis Industry Association v. State: Feeling the Effects of Medical Marijuana on Montana s Rational Basis Test
Montana Law Review Online Volume 76 Article 22 10-28-2015 Montana Cannabis Industry Association v. State: Feeling the Effects of Medical Marijuana on Montana s Rational Basis Test Luc Brodhead Alexander
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :0-cv-000-RSL Document Filed // Page of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel., et al., v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiffs/Relators, CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTIC
More informationRecent Decision in Case Challenging Sex Offender Residency Regulations Yields Important Lessons
1 April 28, 2017 League-L Email Newsletter Recent Decision in Case Challenging Sex Offender Residency Regulations Yields Important Lessons By Claire Silverman, Legal Counsel, League of Wisconsin Municipalities
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO People of the State of California, Plaintiff, vs. Marcus Johnson, Court Nos. 10025389/10024070/ 10032951/11005186 ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRERS
More informationState of Arizona v. United States of America: The Supreme Court Hears Arguments on SB 1070
FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM State of Arizona v. United States of America: The Supreme Court Hears Arguments on SB 1070 Introduction In its lawsuit against the state of Arizona, the United
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Constitutional Law And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Paul, a student at Rural
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:09-cv-08286-PA -JEM Document 45 Filed 06/30/10 Page 1 of 7 Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Paul Songco N/A N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-00-SRB Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Valle del Sol, et al., vs. Plaintiffs, Michael B. Whiting, et al., Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CV 0-0-PHX-SRB
More informationUnited States District Court Central District of California
Case :-cv-0-odw-agr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: O 0 United States District Court Central District of California ARLENE ROSENBLATT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA and THE CITY COUNCIL OF
More informationCase 1:07-cv Document 29 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:07-cv-06048 Document 29 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DAWN S. SHERMAN, a minor, through ) ROBERT I. SHERMAN,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 06-730 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF WASHINGTON;
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION
Terrell v. Costco Wholesale Corporation Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 1 1 1 JULIUS TERRELL, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., Defendant. CASE NO. C1-JLR
More informationNovember 7, :30 PM 4:45 PM. Session 406: The Legal Struggle over Ethnic Studies
November 7, 2014 3:30 PM 4:45 PM Session 406: The Legal Struggle over Ethnic Studies This panel will discuss the legal challenge in Arizona over A.R.S. 15-112 which was used to terminate Tucson Unified
More informationBRIEF IN OPPOSITION FOR RESPONDENT HARRY NISKA
No. 14-443 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States BONN CLAYTON, Petitioner, v. HARRY NISKA, et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
More informationORDINANCE NO
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTION 18-8 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE; PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS AND INTENT; PROVIDING FOR
More informationTHE FUNDRAISERS, THE BEGGARS, AND THE HUNGRY: THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SOLICIT DONATIONS, TO BEG FOR MONEY, AND TO SHARE FOOD
THE FUNDRAISERS, THE BEGGARS, AND THE HUNGRY: THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SOLICIT DONATIONS, TO BEG FOR MONEY, AND TO SHARE FOOD NATE VOGEL* [...] [S]ome [...] citizens feel annoyed or guilty when faced
More informationCase 1:10-cv RFC -CSO Document 1 Filed 10/28/10 Page 1 of 29
Case 1:10-cv-00135-RFC -CSO Document 1 Filed 10/28/10 Page 1 of 29 John E. Bloomquist James E. Brown DONEY CROWLEY BLOOMQUIST PAYNE UDA P.C. 44 West 6 th Avenue, Suite 200 P.O. Box 1185 Helena, MT 59624
More informationUNWRITTEN PARK TRESPASS POLICY UNCONSTITUTIONAL
UNWRITTEN PARK TRESPASS POLICY UNCONSTITUTIONAL James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2007 James C. Kozlowski In the case of Anthony v. State, No. 06-05-00133-CR. (Tex.App. 6 th Dist. 2006), plaintiff Lamar
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 18-766 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States TERESA BIERMAN, et al., v. Petitioners, MARK DAYTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, et al., Respondents. On Petition
More informationCase: 1:17-cv DCN Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/16/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 68 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:17-cv-00410-DCN Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/16/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 68 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JOHN MANCINI, and NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION FOR THE
More informationCase No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHELLE FLANAGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Case: 18-55717, 11/20/2018, ID: 11095057, DktEntry: 27, Page 1 of 21 Case No. 18-55717 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHELLE FLANAGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. XAVIER
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 17-209 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KRISTA ANN MUCCIO,
More informationRECEIVED by MCOA 4/2/ :15:22 AM
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS vs. Plaintiff/Appellee, KEITH ERIC WOOD, COA Case No. 342424 Circuit Ct. No. 17-24073-AR District Ct. No. 15-45978-FY Defendant/Appellant.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. Case No.
Case 3:17-cv-01160 Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS College Republicans of SIUE, Plaintiff, vs. Randy J. Dunn,
More informationDoe v. Valencia College United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Sarah Baldwin *
Sarah Baldwin * On September 13, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in holding that Valencia College did not violate Jeffery Koeppel s statutory or constitutional
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 211-cv-01267-SVW-JCG Document 38 Filed 09/28/11 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #692 Present The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Paul M. Cruz Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION. Plaintiff,
Case :-cv-0-sjo-ss Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California PETER K. SOUTHWORTH Supervising Deputy Attorney General JONATHAN M. EISENBERG Deputy Attorney
More informationCase 5:06-cr TBR Document 101 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH
Case 5:06-cr-00019-TBR Document 101 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 1 of 11 CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06 CR-00019-R UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF
More informationRegulating the Traditional Public Forum & Annual Update of Missouri Land Use Cases
Regulating the Traditional Public Forum & Annual Update of Missouri Land Use Cases Missouri Municipal Attorneys Association July 16, 2016 Presented By: Steven Lucas Maggie Eveker Cunningham, Vogel & Rost,
More informationCase 0:12-cv RNS Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2013 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:12-cv-61959-RNS Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2013 Page 1 of 9 ZENOVIDA LOVE, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 12-61959-Civ-SCOLA vs. Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CITIZENS FOR QUALITY EDUCATION SAN DIEGO, et al., Plaintiffs,
Case :-cv-00-bas-jma Document Filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CITIZENS FOR QUALITY EDUCATION SAN DIEGO, et al., v. Plaintiffs, SAN DIEGO UNIFIED
More informationVia U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail
Via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail October 25, 2016 Douglas T. Sloan, City Attorney Francine M. Kanne, Chief Assistant City Attorney 2600 Fresno Street, Room 2031 Fresno, California 93721-3602 Re: City
More informationHomelessness Assistance Audit Series: City Policies Related to Homelessness
City of Austin Office of the City Auditor Audit Report DR AF T November 2017 City ordinances that limit or ban camping, sitting or lying down in public spaces, and panhandling may create barriers for people
More informationCase: 3:14-cv wmc Document #: 7 Filed: 02/28/14 Page 1 of 13
Case: 3:14-cv-00157-wmc Document #: 7 Filed: 02/28/14 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MADISON VIGIL FOR LIFE, INC., GWEN FINNEGAN, JENNIFER DUNNETT,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:17-cv-14148-ELC-DPH-GJQ ECF No. 88 filed 08/03/18 PageID.2046 Page 1 of 8 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
More information