Zj Gifts D-2 Llc v. City of Aurora’s Empirical Analysis
136 F.3d 683 · 1998
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Heideman v. South Salt Lake City (2003), Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne (2006)
31 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. O'Brien · Ward v. Rock Against Racism · City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. · Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence · Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a commercial establishment which devotes a significant or substantial portion of its stock-in-trade ... to the sale, rental, or viewing ... of books, magazines, periodicals, ... films, motion pictures, video cassettes, ... or other visual representations ... of 'specified sexual activities' or 'specified anatomical areas.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“justify its actions with a completely barren legislative record.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Content-based restrictions on speech, those which “suppress, disadvantage, or impose differential burdens upon speech because of its content,” are subject to “the most exacting scrutiny.” Conversely, content-neutral regulations “pose a less substantial risk of excising certain ideas or viewpoints from the public.dialogue” because they are unrelated to the content of speech. Content-neutral regulations are accordingly subject to intermediate scrutiny.... In determining whether a regulation is content-neutral, “[t]he government’s purpose [in enacting the regulation] is the controlling consideration.” If the regulation “serves purposes unrelated to the content of expression” it Is considered neutral, “even if it has an incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not others.” The Supreme Court has long held that city zoning ordinances which place limits on the location of adult uses are valid exercises of the city’s police power ... Though such regulations treat adult uses differently from other uses based on their sexually explicit nature, they are “designed to prevent crime, ... maintain property values, ... and preserve ... the quality of urban life.” Because ordinances zoning adult uses are intended to curb the secondary effects of those uses on surrounding communities and burden free speech interests only incidentally, they are generally reviewed as content-neutral regulations subject to a less stringent standard of review. 52”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.