Acorn v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding standing where plaintiffs offered evidence of the dates and plans for events in which the challenged ordinance would be violated
• finding standing where plaintiffs offered evidence of the dates and plans for events in which the challenged ordinance would be violated
• applying Babbitt’s standard when evaluating plaintiff’s standing to challenge local ordinances under the First Amendment
• intuitive judgment, however well exercised, is insufficient standard for First Amendment activities
• “In determining the facial validity of a statute or ordinance the court does not consider any specific type of conduct. Rather, the facial validity of a statute is decided by reference to all of the conduct that is proscribed by the statute.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).