Arthur Gallagher v. City of Clayton

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a “facial challenge” to an outdoor-smoking ordinance “is not properly before this court” because “smoking does not implicate the First Amendment on these alleged facts”
• explaining that a complaint cannot “be amended by the briefs on appeal” (quoting Thomason v. Nachtrieb, 888 F.2d 1202, 1205 (7th Cir. 1989)
• holding the legislature’s decision to draw a line and prohibit public smoking while allowing other harmful air pollutants satisfied rational basis
• stating that on a motion to dismiss, the court must \accept as true all facts pleaded by the non-moving party and grant all reasonable inferences from the pleadings in favor of the non-moving party\
• noting the defendant would have to meet that onerous burden even if the defendant’s asserted rationales failed rational-basis review
• finding no 23 fundamental “right to smoke in public” and upholding a city smoking ban under rational-basis review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).