finding that, where a trial court engages in the -15- 1 “disfavored practice” of adopting a prevailing party’s proposed 2 order, an appellate court “must give the order ‘special 3 scrutiny.’”
How later courts described this case
- finding that, where a trial court engages in the -15- 1 “disfavored practice” of adopting a prevailing party’s proposed 2 order, an appellate court “must give the order ‘special 3 scrutiny.’”
- holding that city councilperson's vote to disapprove plaintiff's proposed concerts at city amphitheater was an executive, not a legislative act
- upholding full amount of fees requested under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, where claims of winning plaintiff "concerned the same dispute" as claims of losing plaintiff and "would have required essentially the same amount of trial preparation" whether or not the losing plaintiff was a party
- holding that city councilperson’s voting on proposed concerts constituted administration of its contract with Cinevision
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SNEED, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Judge Reinhardt’s opinion disposes of this case with scholarly expansiveness. It *582 provides a commentary that all who confront First Amendment issues arising from a government’s regulation of access to a public forum should read. These issues, as all would agree, are often perplexing because they involve a clash of purposes, each of which enjoys some degree of legitimacy. Particularly is this true with respect to what Judge Reinhardt discusses under Part I.C.2., dedicating a public facility to a particular form of expression.
However, the case before us is clearly not exquisitely complex. Judge Reinhardt’s recital of the facts makes this clear. Thus, while I recognize the value of Judge Reinhardt’s opinion and the validity of all his conclusions with respect to the facts of this case, I decline to' join in Part I of his opinion. I agree that Cinevision has First Amendment rights, that for the purposes of this case the Starlight Bowl was a public forum, and that the facts adequately support the jury’s finding that the City of Burbank and Councilman Richman violated Cinevision’s First Amendment rights. Thus, I agree with the conclusions reached in Part I.
I concur in all other portions of Judge Reinhardt’s opinion.