Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Honolulu has a significant interest in eliminating the visual clutter caused by unsightly t-shirt vendors and in assuring safe, convenient, and orderly circulation of pedestrians on the streets of Waikiki
• upholding ban on street vending as applied to message-bearing T-shirts under three-pronged standard governing time, place and manner regulations
• finding sale of merchandise bearing political, religious, philosophical or ideological messages “inextricably intertwined” with other forms of protected expression
• district court noted the unique traffic problems caused by having 60,000 visitors per day, necessitating the need to “promote public safety and the orderly movement of pedestrians”
• “Cities have a substantial interest in protecting the aesthetic appearance of their commu- nities by ‘avoiding visual clutter’ . . . [and] assuring safe and convenient circulation on their streets.”
• \[T]he ordinance forecloses one narrow form of expression — side—walk sales of message-bearing merchandise — and leaves the plaintiffs free to disseminate and seek financial support for their views through myriad and diverse alternative channels . .. .\ (quotation marks and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).