Hills v. Board of Parole

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to request a declaratory judgment invalidating a city noise ordinance because they no longer owned the night club that had previ- ously been subject to the ordinance
• holding that injury to the corporation is not injury to the shareholders for purposes of standing, although a shareholder who is injured separately from the corporation’s injury has standing apart from the corporation
• holding that principal owners 21 and shareholders of corporation had individual standing when seeking damages for intentional 22 infliction of emotional distress and defamation and alleging violations of their individual rights 23 under the First and Fourteenth Amendments
• finding that the plaintiff’s claim accrued at the time the City decided to commence an abatement action and provided notice of said action
• finding that “the City’s 9 allegedly discriminatory treatment of other clubs playing rap and hip-hop music and catering to 10 African American patrons may be relevant evidence of an unconstitutional purpose,” including 11 race or viewpoint discrimination
• finding city’s decision to institute 4 abatement hearings against plaintiff, not beginning of abatement hearing, was the date of 5 injury for statute of limitations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).