# Deja Vu of Cincinnati, L.L.C. v. Union Township Board of Trustees

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · June 21, 2005 · 411 F.3d 777

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9813686

## Case

- **Full name:** DEJA VU OF CINCINNATI, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. the UNION TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES Et Al., Defendants-Appellees, Attorney General of the State of Ohio, Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 21, 2005
- **Citations:** 411 F.3d 777; 2005 WL 1431472
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Martin
- **Judges:** Boggs, Martin, Batchelder, Daughtrey, Moore, Cole, Clay, Gilman, Gibbons, Rogers, Sutton, Cook
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9813686

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that licensing ordinances applying subjective standards, such as the ordinance at issue in Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 59, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965), "necessitate [] that strict time limits be placed on judicial review"

## Opinion text

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge,
with whom Judges DAUGHTREY and MOORE join, dissenting in part.
We join Judge Clay’s dissent concluding that the ordinance amounts to an unconstitutional prior restraint on protected expression. The ordinance simply fails to provide for judicial review of a Board decision to not renew or to revoke a permit for an adult cabaret when the decision is issued “preliminary to or as a result of a criminal proceeding.” We also agree with Judge Clay that the hours of operation provision fails the constitutional standard of being “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.” The ordinance therefore violates the First Amendment. Because we would invalidate the hours of operation provision on First Amendment grounds, we would not reach the parties’ Equal Protection challenge.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9813686. Public record. Not legal advice.