Skip to main content
· 9/13/2000

Wright v. County of Du Page

Citations

  • 736 N.E.2d 650
  • 316 Ill. App. 3d 28
  • 249 Ill. Dec. 456
  • 2000 Ill. App. LEXIS 746

How courts have described this case

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

  • because activities occurring at massage spas did not constitute expression protected under the first amendment, court did not need to consider spas’ claim that ordinance governing spas was unconstitutional as overly restrictive and a prior restraint on freedom of speech
  • it would have been patently unfair to allow a party to use a stipulation that was reached for the purpose of challenging a license ordinance as evidence in defense of the other party's second amended counterclaim, which dealt with a different issue
  • it would have been patently unfair to allow a party to use a stipulation that was reached for the purpose of challenging a license ordinance as evidence in defense of the other party’s second amended counterclaim, which dealt with a different issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bowman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.