International Eateries of America, Inc. v. Broward County, Florida

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 city \need not conduct its own studies\ in order to \have a reasonable basis for its belief that the harm to be protected against [by the zoning ordinance] in fact exists\
• holding that a city \need not conduct its own studies” in order to \have a reasonable basis for its belief that the harm to be protected against [by the zoning ordinance] in fact exists”
• holding that a city “need not conduct its own studies” in order to “have a reasonable basis for its belief that the harm to be protected against [by the zoning ordinance] in fact exists”
• concluding that the statute at issue in Barnes was different in a significant respect because “in Barnes, the statute prohibited all public nudity,” whereas “Broward County’s distance ordinances only apply to ‘designated uses,’ which include the ‘adult nightclub’ involved in this case”
• noting that Broward County had relied on the experiences of Detroit in enacting its ordinance
• noting that the Supreme Court did not intend “to eliminate narrow-tailoring requirement from time, place, and manner analysis,” even though the Renton decision did not explicitly mention the need for narrow tailoring

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).