D.H.L. Associates, Inc. v. O'Gorman

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• holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the enforcement of ordinances that were no longer in effect
• upholding zoning ordinance that “applie[d] directly to adult entertainment providers [and] does not reach other forms of entertainment,” noting that it “eonfine[d] the impact of the restriction ... and [did] not impact other aspects of the activity”
• finding a return to the challenged conduct unlikely in part because the city’s ordinance was amended “apparently for the purpose of making it more likely to overcome constitutional challenge” and had not been amended again in a few years
• “[W]e are without power to grant injunctive and declaratory relief because the [challenged] ordinances no longer exist”
• “The essence of this question is not whether a degree of curtailment of speech exists, but rather whether the remaining communicative avenues are adequate.”
• “[W]e are without power to grant injunctive and declaratory relief because the [challenged] ordinances no longer exist.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).