Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Englewood

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that 6:00 p.m. curfew on door-to-door solicitation violated First Amendment
• analyzing “ordinance banning all door-to-door canvassing and soliciting between 6 P.M. and 9 A.M.” as a time, place, and manner restriction after plaintiff conceded the ordinance was content neutral, but nevertheless concluding the curfew was unconstitutional
• “[T]he City has failed to demonstrate that the curfew on door-to-door canvassing is narrowly tailored.”
• “We do not address the facial validity of Englewood's curfew provision because we conclude that it cannot survive OCA's as-applied challenge.”
• “Standing is determined at the time the complaint is filed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).