Tollis Inc. v. San Bernardino County’s Empirical Analysis
827 F.2d 1329 · 1987
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Crawford v. Lungren (1996), Colacurcio v. City of Kent (1998)
35 federal appellate · 7 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United States v. O'Brien · City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. · Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. · Kahn v. Grant · Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp.
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The County must show that in enacting the particular limitations ... it relied upon evidence permitting the reasonable inference that, absent such limitations, the adult theaters would have harmful secondary effects”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Phillips · Porter v. Gore“Id. at 1333 (emphasis added). We then found that the county had presented no evidence that a single showing of an adult film would have any of the harmful secondary effects on the community that the county had identified as the basis for the regulation. Id. 27 Like the county in Tollis, Los Angeles has presented no evidence that a combination adult bookstore/arcade produces any of the harmful secondary effects identified in the Study. As the above discussion indicates, the evidence the City has”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“designed to serve a substantial governmental interest and do[es] not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication.”
4 later decisions 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.