Seventh Circuit· 12/28/1998
John Sefick v. Richard Gardner
Citations
- 164 F.3d 370
- 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 32502
- 1998 WL 901535
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding lobby of courthouse is nonpublic forum
- “The lobby of the courthouse is not a traditional public forum or a designated public forum, not a place open to the public for the presentation of views.”
- “No one doubts that displays in courtrooms and adjacent corridors may be limited to the icons of government, such as seals and flags, and that judges may insist that all those present behave in a dignified manner.”
- “the GSA decided that for security and aesthetic reasons it will not authorize displays of any kind in the lobby of the Dirksen Courthouse. Today the nature and message of a sculpture is irrelevant; none will be displayed.”
- classifying federal courthouse lobby as nonpublic forum
- disposing of case at trial
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Easterbrook, Wood, Evans
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
19 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Huminski v. CorsonesSecond Circuit· 2005-01-18· cited 234×
- Janet Bell v. City of BoiseNinth Circuit· 2013-03-07· cited 198×
- Huminski v. CorsonesSecond Circuit· 2004-10-07· cited 161×
- Verlo v. MartinezTenth Circuit· 2016-04-08· cited 76×
- Anatol Zukerman v. USPSD.C. Circuit· 2020-06-09· cited 47×
- Robert C. Braun v. Leverett BaldwinSeventh Circuit· 2003-10-10· cited 38×
- Edwards v. Illinois Board of Admissions to the BarSeventh Circuit· 2001-08-22· cited 32×
- Carmen J. Cardona v. Eric K. ShinsekiVeterans Claims· 2014-03-11· cited 12×
- Hernandez v. County of MontereyN.D. California· 2015-04-14· cited 12×
- Mercier v. City of La CrosseW.D. Wisconsin· 2003-07-14· cited 8×
- TinleySparks, Inc. v. Village of Tinley ParkN.D. Illinois· 2015-05-11· cited 8×
- DiLoreto v. Downey Unified School District Board of EducationNinth Circuit· 1999-11-08· cited 7×
- Wandering Dago Inc. v. New York State Office of General ServicesN.D. New York· 2014-01-15· cited 6×
- Driftless Area Land Conservancy v. Rural Utilities ServiceSeventh Circuit· 2023-07-19· cited 6×
- Braun v. TerryE.D. Wisconsin· 2015-11-30· cited 4×
- Albrecht v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition AuthorityN.D. Illinois· 2004-10-01· cited 2×
- Unnamed caseSecond Circuit· 2001-08-22
- Braun, Robert C. v. Baldwin, LeverettSeventh Circuit· 2003-10-10
- National Wildlife Refuge Association v. American Transmission Company LLCSeventh Circuit· 2023-07-19
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court· 1983-04-20· cited 5,797×
- Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'nSupreme Court· 1983-02-23· cited 2,855×
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.Supreme Court· 1985-07-02· cited 1,935×
- United States v. GraceSupreme Court· 1983-04-20· cited 1,050×
- United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., Inc.Supreme Court· 1968-11-25· cited 896×
- Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. ForbesSupreme Court· 1998-05-18· cited 501×
- Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. HudsonSupreme Court· 1986-03-04· cited 498×
- In the Matter Of: Unr Industries, Inc., Debtors. Appeals of Unarco Bloomington Factory WorkersSeventh Circuit· 1994-05-27· cited 218×
- Parks v. PavkovicSeventh Circuit· 1985-02-05· cited 104×
- Albert R. Piarowski v. Illinois Community College District 515, Prairie State CollegeSeventh Circuit· 1985-05-10· cited 87×
- Chicago Acorn, Seiu Local No. 880, and Ted Thomas v. Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, Cross-AppelleeSeventh Circuit· 1998-07-21· cited 82×
- Sefick v. City of ChicagoN.D. Illinois· 1979-11-30· cited 14×
- Sefick v. GardnerN.D. Illinois· 1998-02-12· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.