BARMAT
v.
ROBERTSON, SUPERINTENDENT, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSES AND CONTROL, ET AL.
BARMAT
ROBERTSON, SUPERINTENDENT, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSES AND CONTROL, ET AL.
449 U.S. 894
Supreme Court of the United States (1980)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami Springs v. J.J.T., Inc., 437 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…3 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 132, 74 L.Ed.2d 113 (1982) (ordinance banning exposure of private parts or female breasts in bars). See also Barmat v. Robertson, 125 Ariz. 514, 611 P. 2d 101 (Ariz.Ct.App.1980), appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 894, 101 S.Ct. 259, 66 L.Ed.2d 124 (1980); Wright v. Town of Huxley, 249 N.W. 2d 672 (Iowa 1977); Boston Licensing Board v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, 367 Mass. 788, 328 N.E. 2d 848 (1975); Mazza v. Cavicchia, 15 N.J. 498, 105 A. 2d 545 (19…
-
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for the Cnty. of Norfolk, 457 U.S. 596 (U.S. 1982)…lobe then appealed to this Court. Following our decision in Richmond Newspapers, we vacated the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of that decision. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 449 U. S. 894 (1980). On remand, the Supreme Judicial Court, adhering to its earlier construction of § 16A, considered whether our decision in Richmond Newspapers required the invalidation of the mandatory closure rule of §16A. 383 Mass. 838, 423 N. E. 2d 773 (1…
-
Pringle v. Court OF Common Pleas, 778 F.2d 998 (3d Cir. 1985)…are assumed to be aware of such constructions, the Superior Court determined that the statute had been limited properly by a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision. In that case, Commonwealth v. Mastrangelo, 489 Pa. 254, 414 A. 2d 54, appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 894, 101 S.Ct. 259, 66 L.Ed.2d 124 (1980), the court ruled that a different subsection of the Pennsylvania disorderly conduct statute applied only to speech unprotected by the First Amend [*1002] ment.3 However, we disagree with the Superior Court’s con…