
• Iowa judge says a sheriff denied the applications of a father and son for concealed weapons permits in retaliation for their political activism. "This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views." Dorr v. Weber
• 5th Circuit rules that a school district violated the religious freedom of a Native American boy by requiring him to wear his long hair in a bun on top of his head or in a braid tucked into his shirt. The boy "has a sincere religious belief in wearing his hair uncut and in plain view." A.A. v. Needville Ind. Sch. Dist.
• 11th Circuit denies a challenge to an ordinance restricting handouts of food to the homeless in Orlando parks. "[W]e are unpersuaded that the conduct of simply feeding people ... is expressive for First Amendment purposes." First Vagabonds Church v. City of Orlando
• Boston judge slashes a jury award in an illegal music downloading case from $675,000 to $67,500. "The award in this case ... lacks any rational foundation and smacks of arbitrariness." Sony v. Tenenbaum
• Iowa Supreme Court suspends a voyeuristic attorney indefinitely for peeping on women through windows. "[W]e cannot overlook the serious, egregious, and persistent nature of [Mark] Templeton’s misconduct and the effect it had on his victims." Disciplinary Board v. Templeton
• Pennsylvania judge strikes down the state's blasphemy law in a case brought by a film producer who wanted to name his company "I Choose Hell Productions." "'Choosing hell' may be an irreverent choice for a corporate name, but under the Constitution, this fact alone cannot be the basis for its suppression from the public debate." Kalman v. Cortes
• Cancer patient sues Wal-Mart for firing him after discovering that he uses medical marijuana for pain relief. "[N]o corporation doing business in Michigan should be permitted to flout state laws protecting patients who use medical marihuana in accordance with state law." Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores
• 11th Circuit rules that the operator of an Internet porn dorm was engaged in illegally operating a business in a residential zone. "Business objectives are the sole reason individuals are paid to live and engage in sexual activities at the 27th Street residence." Flava Works v. City of Miami

|
|
Town Backing Away from Private Sex Club Ban? |
|
A Dallas suburb appears to be backing away from its new law banning sex clubs in private homes that a homeowner is challenging as an infringement on the right of adults to engage in private sexual conduct.
The city of Duncanville passed the law in November after receiving complaints from neighbors about the weekend parties at Jim Trulock's split-level home which he hosts for up to 100 members of his “Cherry Pit” swinger's club.
The new Chapter 11B-5(h) of the city's municipal code defines a sex club as “Any premises, person or organization that ... provides permission, an opportunity or an invitation to engage in or to view sexual activity, stimulation or gratification, whether for consideration or not.”
That definition means a sex club that is not a business would be illegal. And according to an injunctive relief suit filed by Trulock, the law is so overbroad that it “criminalizes the behavior of a substantial portion of the population of Duncanville who seek to engage in sexual activity.”
But in an answer to Trulock's suit and a counterclaim for an injunction, the city does not venture a defense of the new ordinance. Instead, it says Trulock has violated Chapter 11A-13 of its code, which prohibits operation of a sexually-oriented business within 1,000 feet of the boundary of a residential neighborhood.
Under that ordinance, a sexually-oriented business is any “commercial enterprise the primary business of which is the offering of a service or the selling, renting, or exhibiting of devices or other items intended to provide sexual stimulation or sexual gratification to the customer.”
Trulock “organizes, manages and controls sexually-oriented events at [his] Premises, and solicits a fee for attendance at the events,” the city's brief says. A hearing on the injunction motions is scheduled for Jan. 25.
By focusing on the Chapter 11A-13 violations, Duncanville may be trying to limit the case to the factual issue of whether Trulock is running a business. He insists that he solicits only voluntary “donations” to cover the cost of food and refreshment.
But if the city had any real confidence in its facts, why would it enact a new law that prohibits sex clubs whether they are operated “for consideration or not?”
The city's argument that the “Cherry Pit” is a public nuisance is also less than convincing. Trulock “does not have any policy or measures in place to safeguard against the spread of sexually-transmittted diseases and, thus, the activities at the Premises pose a risk to the public health,” its brief says.
In the same document, however, the city notes that “condoms are made available if requested by an attendee.” Trulock attorney Edward B. Klein of Carrollton, Texas says wicker baskets filled with condoms are provided in every room.
“That sounds like a policy to me,” he adds.
|
UPDATES
A Dallas County judge dismissed Trulock's case Feb. 21, 2008 for want of jurisdiction.
In a Feb. 19, 2009 opinion, the Texas 5th District Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal on the basis of mootness. The City of Duncanville had enacted a revised ordinance May 6, 2008.
|
By Matthew Heller 1/10/08
|
|
-
Sex Harassment Claims Hit Actor Affleck, 'Bones' Star
A producer of a film about actor Joaquin Phoenix, an extra on the set of the TV show “Bones,” an assistant property master, and a makeup artist are among the plaintiffs in a recent epidemic of lurid Hollywood lawsuits.
Read more...
-
Jury Goes 'Wild' in Woman's Privacy Case Over Video
A Missouri jury has gone wild in a case of involuntary nudity, finding that a woman consented to appearing topless in a “Girls Gone Wild” video by playing to the camera before another person pulled her top down.
Read more...
-
Actress Facing $750K Award to Therapist
Soap opera star Hunter Tylo may have to pay more than $750,000 in damages and attorney fees to a psychotherapist whom she sued more than four years ago for negligent treatment of her children, On Point has learned.
Read more...
-
Reporter Sues Hotels Over Peephole Videos
In an unusual premises liability case, ESPN reporter Erin Andrews has sued the operators of three hotels for allowing a stalker to surreptitiously videotape her naked through peepholes in the doors to her rooms.
Read more...
-
Students Challenge Rubber Fetus Ban
The suspensions of seven pro-life students at two Roswell, N.M., high schools for distributing rubber fetuses have given birth to a lawsuit that takes the First Amendment protections for student speech into uncharted territory.
Read more...
-
Distress Claim Barred in Hotel 'Ménâge à Trois' Case
A former employee of a luxury Miami Beach hotel who says her billionaire boss invited her to join him in a “ménâge à trois” cannot sue him for infliction of emotional distress, a judge has ruled, finding his alleged behavior, while “obnoxious,” was not “objectively outrageous.”
Read more...
-
Chuck E. Cheese Settles Molesting Mascot Suit
A Missouri woman who claimed a Chuck E. Cheese mascot groped her breast has settled her lawsuit against the operator of the restaurant chain, On Point has learned.
Read more...
|
Stovell v. James Subject: LeBron's paternity Document: Complaint
U.S. v. Arizona Subject: Illegal immigration Document: Complaint
Rosenberg v. Google Subject: Negligent navigation Document: Complaint
Smith v. Hooters Subject: Weight discrimination Document: Complaint
City of Ontario v. Quon Subject: Text-message privacy Document: Opinion
more
|
|
Rosenberg v. Musical Arts Assn. Court: Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Common Pleas Subject: Defamation, age bias
Mecozzi v. City of Los Angeles Court: L.A. Superior Subject: Police brutality Verdict: $1.7 million
more
|
|
Jose Padilla v. John Yoo Date: 6/14/10 Court: 9th Circuit Hearing: Oral arguments in human rights case.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger Date: 6/16/10 Court: USDC, N. Calif. Hearing: Closing arguments in trial of challenge to gay marriage ban.
more
|
|
|