Charles M. Grossman, M.D. v. City of Portland, a Public Body, and Todd Davis

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the possibility that the ordinance at issue could reach \the actions of single protestors\ rendered it unconstitutional
• holding that the possibility that the ordinance at issue could reach “the actions of single protestors” rendered it unconstitutional
• recognizing that “because of the delay caused by complying with the permitting procedures, [i]mmediate speech can no longer respond to immediate issues” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)
• recognizing that “because of the delay caused by complying with the permitting procedures, [i]mmediate speech can no longer respond to immediate issues” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omit- ted)
• holding that the possibility that the ordinance at issue could reach “the actions of single protestors” rendered it unconstitutional
• holding that due to the delay entailed by a maximum 7-day processing period, “immediate speech can no longer respond to immediate issues,” and spontaneous expression is thus “prohibited by the ordinance”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).