# Cinevision Corp. v. City of Burbank

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · October 18, 1984 · 745 F.2d 560

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8925217

## Case

- **Full name:** CINEVISION CORPORATION, a Corporation, Wolf and Rissmiller Concerts, a corporation v. CITY OF BURBANK, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California, and Jim Richman, Defendants-Appellees CINEVISION CORPORATION, a corporation, and Wolf and Rissmiller Concerts, a corporation v. CITY OF BURBANK, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California and Jim Richman, Defendants-Appellants CINEVISION CORPORATION, a corporation, and Wolf and Rissmiller Concerts, a corporation v. CITY OF BURBANK, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California and Jim Richman, Defendants-Appellants CINEVISION CORPORATION, a corporation, Wolf and Rissmiller Concerts, a corporation v. CITY OF BURBANK, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California, and Jim Richman
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 18, 1984
- **Citations:** 745 F.2d 560; 53 U.S.L.W. 2234
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sneed
- **Judges:** Reinhardt, Sneed
- **Cited by:** 141 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8925217

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- holding that city councilperson’s voting on proposed concerts constituted administration of its contract with Cinevision
- recognizing that making expressive materials available to the public “further[s] a first amendment interest”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8925217. Public record. Not legal advice.