Roark & Hardee LP v. City of Austin

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 injury or threat of injury must be both real and immediate”
• explaining that the necessary-steps provision was a new restriction that the ordinance placed on owners or operators of public places and describing the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to its application
• finding that responses to “lengthy hypothetical questions” did not create an issue of arbitrary enforcement
• explaining that the necessary-steps provision was a new restriction that the ordinance placed on owners or operators of public places and describing the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to its application
• holding ripe plaintiffs’ claims where violation of challenged “ordinance [could] subject [plaintiffs] to 20 Case: 11-30296 Document: 00511960626 Page: 21 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 No. 11-30296 heavy fines . . . and possible revocation of their licenses and permits”
• explaining that under “the proper procedure for analyzing a facial vagueness challenge . . . the complainant’s conduct should be analyzed before the court considers other hypothetical applications of the law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).