About: City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FCity_of_Los_Angeles_v._Alameda_Books%2C_Inc.&graph=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org&graph=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org

Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court case on the controversial issue of adult bookstore zoning in the city of Los Angeles. Zoning laws dictated that no adult bookstores could be within five hundred feet of a public park, or religious establishment, or within 1000 feet of another adult establishment. However, Alameda Books, Inc. and Highland Books, Inc. were two adult stores that operated under one roof. They sued Los Angeles, stating the ordinance violated the First Amendment. The district court concurred with the stores, stating that the 1977 study stating there was a higher crime rate in areas with adult stores, which the law was based upon, did not support a reasonable belief that multiple-use adult establishments produce the seconda

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	Thing case Legal Case unit of work Legal case yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity Supreme Court of the United States case
rdfs:label	City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (en)
rdfs:comment	Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court case on the controversial issue of adult bookstore zoning in the city of Los Angeles. Zoning laws dictated that no adult bookstores could be within five hundred feet of a public park, or religious establishment, or within 1000 feet of another adult establishment. However, Alameda Books, Inc. and Highland Books, Inc. were two adult stores that operated under one roof. They sued Los Angeles, stating the ordinance violated the First Amendment. The district court concurred with the stores, stating that the 1977 study stating there was a higher crime rate in areas with adult stores, which the law was based upon, did not support a reasonable belief that multiple-use adult establishments produce the seconda (en)
foaf:name	(en) City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., et al. (en)
dcterms:subject	2005 in United States case law History of Los Angeles United States Supreme Court cases United States land use case law Sex businesses United States Free Speech Clause case law United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
Wikipage page ID	33517425 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1118230754 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	Sandra Day O'Connor 2005 in United States case law History of Los Angeles United States Supreme Court cases Los Angeles Massage parlor United States land use case law American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression Sex businesses United States Free Speech Clause case law First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court L. Ed. 2d Supreme Court of the United States Freedom to Read Foundation Certiorari United States courts of appeals U.S. LEXIS dbr:Feminists_for_Free_Expression
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	https://www.oyez.org/cases/2001/00-799 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/535/425/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-799.ZS.html http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep535/usrep535425/usrep535425.pdf
sameAs	City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Citation_needed dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Reflist dbt:Ussc
Dissent	Souter (en)
JoinDissent	Stevens, Ginsburg; Breyer (en)
oyez	https://www.oyez.org/cases/2001/00-799
ParallelCitations	172800.0 (second)
USPage	425 (xsd:integer)
USVol	535 (xsd:integer)
ArgueDate	0001-12-04 (xsd:gMonthDay)
ArgueYear	2001 (xsd:integer)
case	Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., (en)
DecideDate	0001-05-13 (xsd:gMonthDay)
DecideYear	2002 (xsd:integer)
fullname	City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., et al. (en)
Holding	Los Angeles may reasonably rely on its 1977 study to demonstrate that its present ban on multiple use adult establishments serves its interest in reducing crime. (en)
justia	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/535/425/
Litigants	Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (en)
loc	http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep535/usrep535425/usrep535425.pdf
has abstract	Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court case on the controversial issue of adult bookstore zoning in the city of Los Angeles. Zoning laws dictated that no adult bookstores could be within five hundred feet of a public park, or religious establishment, or within 1000 feet of another adult establishment. However, Alameda Books, Inc. and Highland Books, Inc. were two adult stores that operated under one roof. They sued Los Angeles, stating the ordinance violated the First Amendment. The district court concurred with the stores, stating that the 1977 study stating there was a higher crime rate in areas with adult stores, which the law was based upon, did not support a reasonable belief that multiple-use adult establishments produce the secondary effects the city asserted as content-neutral justifications for its restrictions on adult stores. The Court of Appeals upheld this verdict, and found that even if the ordinance were content neutral, the city failed to present evidence upon which it could reasonably rely to demonstrate that its regulation of multiple-use establishments was designed to serve its substantial interest in reducing crime. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city. This reversed the decision of the lower court. This case was argued on December 4, 2001; certiorari was granted on March 5, 2001. "City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, 00-799, didn't involve the kind of adult material that can be regulated by the government, but rather the extent to which cities can ban "one-stop shopping" sex-related businesses." (en)
Concurrence	Kennedy (en) Scalia (en)
cornell	https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-799.ZS.html
JoinPlurality	Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas (en)
Plurality	O'Connor (en)
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:City_of_Los_Angeles_v._Alameda_Books,_Inc.?oldid=1118230754&ns=0
page length (characters) of wiki page	15356 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf	wikipedia-en:City_of_Los_Angeles_v._Alameda_Books,_Inc.
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of	Déjà Vu (company) Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. Los Angeles v Alameda Books, Inc. City of Los Angeles v Alameda Books, Inc. 535 U.S. 425 City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books
is Wikipage redirect of	Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. Los Angeles v Alameda Books, Inc. City of Los Angeles v Alameda Books, Inc. 535 U.S. 425 City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books
is foaf:primaryTopic of	wikipedia-en:City_of_Los_Angeles_v._Alameda_Books,_Inc.

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 57 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software