Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a city ordinance of Detroit, Michigan requiring dispersal of adult businesses throughout the city. Justice Stevens (writing for the plurality) reasoned that the speech involved here is of lower value, and the city also has a compelling interest in protecting quality of life.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a city ordinance of Detroit, Michigan requiring dispersal of adult businesses throughout the city. Justice Stevens (writing for the plurality) reasoned that the speech involved here is of lower value, and the city also has a compelling interest in protecting quality of life. (en)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- Young, Mayor of Detroit, et al. v. American Mini Theatres, Incorporated, et al. (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
Dissent
| - Stewart (en)
- Blackmun (en)
|
JoinDissent
| - Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun (en)
- Brennan, Stewart, Marshall (en)
|
JoinMajority
| - Burger, White, Powell, Rehnquist (en)
|
LawsApplied
| |
oyez
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueDate
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| - Young v. American Mini Theatres, (en)
|
courtlistener
| |
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
findlaw
| |
fullname
| - Young, Mayor of Detroit, et al. v. American Mini Theatres, Incorporated, et al. (en)
|
Holding
| - It is constitutional for a city to enact a zoning rule that treats ordinary cinemas differently from adult cinemas. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| - Young v. American Mini Theatres (en)
|
majority
| |
loc
| |
has abstract
| - Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a city ordinance of Detroit, Michigan requiring dispersal of adult businesses throughout the city. Justice Stevens (writing for the plurality) reasoned that the speech involved here is of lower value, and the city also has a compelling interest in protecting quality of life. Justice Powell (concurring) disagreed with Stevens' "lower value speech" argument (thus limiting Part III of the opinion to a plurality), but wrote that this is only a place restriction with a limited effect on speech. (en)
|
Concurrence
| |
googlescholar
| |
JoinPlurality
| - Burger, White, Rehnquist (en)
|
Plurality
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |