Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc.: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Disambiguate Value to Value (ethics) using popups |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|Holding= |
|Holding= |
||
|SCOTUS=1975-1981 |
|SCOTUS=1975-1981 |
||
im gay |
|||
|Majority=Stevens |
|Majority=Stevens |
||
|JoinMajority=Burger, White, Rehnquist; Powell (except part III) |
|JoinMajority=Burger, White, Rehnquist; Powell (except part III) |
||
Revision as of 21:00, 7 December 2011
| Young v. American Mini Theatres | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 24, 1976 Decided June 24, 1976 | |
| Full case name | Young, Mayor of Detroit, et al. v. American Mini Theatres, Incorporated, et al. |
| Citations | 427 U.S. 50 (more) 96 S. Ct. 2440; 49 L. Ed. 2d 310; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 3; 1 Media L. Rep. 1151 |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Burger, White, Rehnquist; Powell (except part III) |
| Concurrence | Powell |
| Dissent | Stewart, joined by Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun |
| Dissent | Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Stewart, and Marshall |
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 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, but wrote that this is only a place restriction with a limited effect on speech.
See also
External links
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |