# Appendix G — Wiener v. City of National City

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386019_1004%3A7

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix G
- **Published:** January 1, 1993
- **Citation:** 510 U.S. 824

## Text

APPENDIX G

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Si 2S 8 Ot 8 618 8 8 OO ©. 8 8 6.8.8 6 6 bd 0

C2 28) 6882) 24 2S S 8 OH OO BOO
Reed ie Bill ie Nd eae wo ee Oe i ee i i i me fr Ye i ier ar er

— se eee ee Sees eeuwaeaeeeeeecesec Beeaeseseeeseeeseerdne

=e SOS O02 6S. 8464 4.6 654 eS OBS

Sia s vis sc ccccsscdcvecccecss
Procedural Background and Interim Appeal.....
The Subject Ordinances ..................... l

NC RO io ORT Sr ee 6 eee A LA a EER aa
on

== PPS ROSPCeeah Geese aneaasctéeensbesanen seo eerses
> =e @PORPeASCeeeeeeeeneeece een est ese eaevsevb es

e@eeeteeoeneoen ees eee een eee eee

(2) Facts arising after the conclusion of trial... 18
eT OP UNOPS voc ccc uc ceccnccccecee 19
OSE a a

[Patediitieecaiiemeteeee

N.C.M.C § 18.69.030 VIOLATES THE FIRST
AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT WAS ENACTED
FOR THE TRANSPARENT AND PREDOMINANT
PURPOSE OF DENYING ALL REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADULT ENTER-
TAINMENT BUSINESSES TO -LOCATE IN
a 20

A. The Obvious And Devastating Effect Which This
Ordinance Has On The Ability Of Adult
Entertainment Businesses To Find Locations Is
Strong Evidence Of A Predominant Censorial

G2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

B. Further Evidence Of The City’s Predominant
Censorial Purpose Is Its “Urgency” Enactment of
Ordinance 1974 Which Now Requires A
Completely Unattainable Conditional Use Permit 34

C. The City’s Failure To Justify Its Unprecedentedly
Large Separation Requirements Is_ Further
Evidence Of A Predominant And Impermissible
RP rer rere 37

II

N.C.M.C. § 18.69.030 MUST BE STRICKEN UNDER
THE FIRST AMENDMENT DUE TO ITS
SEVERELY RESTRICTIVE EFFECT REGARD-
LESS OF ANY PURPOSE THE COUNCIL HAD IN
ee WE oro wii ses ok oak reece iRel es 39

Il

THE CHILLING IMPACT OF PROTRACTED
LITIGATION UPON THE EXERCISE OF FIRST
AMENDMENT FREEDOMS IS A COMPELLING
REASON FOR THIS COURT TO INDEPEN-
DENTLY CONCLUDE THAT THE ORDINANCE
HERE AT ISSUE ALSO VIOLATES RESPON-
DENT’S AND THE PUBLIC’S RIGHTS TO
FREE EXPRESSION GUARANTEED UNDER
ARTICLE I, SECTION 2 OF THE CALIFORNIA
CUS REN ROEE So ccc ek se cost ahivchah eves. 41

A. Article I, Section 2 Of The California Constitution
Provides An Independent Basis For Relief Herein 41

B. Public Policy Reasons In This Particular Case
Strongly Support A Ruling By This Court Under
Both The First Amenément To The United States
Constitution And Article I, Section 2 Of The
EP eee eee 43

CAPCU TS cb c6S Reh Sac cetnestcbhenceuwestteare 45

—_—
os

ih sib Db

2 AE IB aN OnE Si ONE Hie PN et ne AS li in ae 8 Cie pO PAS erie 88 ete: lab aes are Re

Sie Rar a SNS ei ba ARR ig OMANI EBA! LTE

ih ap dd Ae a

‘ery

G3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Federal Cases

Page

Acorn Investments, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 887 F.2d 219

SR fs veel hnUda ven dnaaee wae cena e 21, 38
Alexander v. City of Minneapolis, 698 F.2d 936 _

SG CE oi wa ka dhedkus 65004055 Cece snes 40
CLR Corp. v. Henline, 702 F.2d 637 (6th Cir. 1983).... 40
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 106

gh He DOE ads Scho cka eens 2, 6, 20, 23, 24, 28, 31, 39
City of Whittier v. Walnut Properties, Inc., 861 F.2d 1102

Cs SN Rh CRW bk b 60a soe MES as 2a eR as oS 23, 39, 40
Bose v. Consumer’s Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 104

es Ne Ei 6 bind cis ds diane ee sean 19
Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, USS. :

S.Ct. : L.Ed.2d __., 59 U.S. Law Week

4858, 91 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7639 (June 27, 1991) .. 19
Tollis, Inc. v. San Bernardino County, 827 F.2d 1329

ee nia ig oie aici A nga uuuuSe AA BoB AOS 21, 38
Walnut Properties, Inc. v. City of Whittier, 808 F.2d 1331

a LS oy SE er rn ne 19, 21, 38
Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct.

EE RG nes cds tak wee Wh ae KAA OE 2, 6, 23, 39, 45

State Cases

Burton v. Municipal Court, 68 Cal.2d 684, 68 Cal.Rptr.

Fe ES chk Richa ORERR a abacus esi ee ees 36

Castner v. City of Oakland, 129 Cal.App.3rd 94 (1982) 32
City of Imperial Beach v. Escott, 115 C.A.3d 134, 171

5 % §:. ) ere ere ee 36
City of Stanton v. Cox, 207 Cal.App.3d 1557, 255
Re A COPE oc inca vansuat este deeenenan ce 23

City of Stanton v. Cox, 207 Cal.App.3d 1563, 255
eo gt , errr renee ere ect

G4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

STATE CASES

Page
City of Vallejo v. Adult Books, 167 Cal.App.3d
SEE ecevewkece¥as ovekedbekawertaneeel 23, 28, 31-33
City of Whittier v. Walnut Properties, 149 Cal.App.3d 633,
SPT Se GET: 6045 so eae nsesesasnnvaadsineine 5, 36
Ebel v. City of Garden Grove, 120 Cal.App.3d 399, 176
et Sy. | eer ee 36
Good Government Group v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.3d 672,
Soe SS BE EEE 5s nin ng. 5-4-4s Adee s keke ee 43
Kaufman v. Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n., 140
Cal.App.3d 913, 189 Cal.Rptr. 818 (1983) .......... 43

People v. Glaze, 27 Cal.3d 841, 166 Cal.Rptr. 859 (1980) 42
Perrine v. Municipal Court, 5 Cal.3d 656, 97 Cal.Rptr. 320

os SREP err ere rer ne ae ee age ere 36
Raven v. Deukmejian, 52 Cal.3d 336, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326
ty pie eee ere Cee eee ere rer en ee 42
Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal.3d 899, 153
eS Rt BES ey eee erage reas 42
Sands v. Moronzo United School District, 53 Cal.3d 863,
ee Se ee CPI oie 25 ois on cre BEG A as 43
Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda, 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 259
eS ge Ee ee oer rer ny ae 21, 37, 38
Strand Property Corp. v. Municipal Court, 148
Cal.App.3rd 882, 200 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1983)........... 32
Walnut Properties v. Long Beach City Council, 100
Cal.App.3rd 1018, 161 Cal.Rptr. 411 (1980)......... 31
Wilson v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.3d 652, 119 Cal.Rptr. 468
| A ee nero acre ene eee eee 42
Federal Statutes
Uuited Btmes Comstitutiom .... ccc cn cccccesccesceucs 42, 43

First Amendment ........... 7, 19, 31, 34, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45

tee.

_— or

2 FL MIRE RS * «Eilat igs eat he. nage tu

ae Ae ee ah er mee EL 8 oe DY hl OR Te

G5

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Federal Statutes

Page
California Constitution....................-. 7, 41, 42, 43, 44
PAPTIGED FE, OGTR Bo icc cece ncuccccccceusvecss 7, 41-44
Evidence Code §§ 452(g)......... 0... cece cee cues 27
Evidence Code §§ 459(a).. 2.0... . cc ccc ccc ccc cence 19, 27
Ordinances
National City Municipal Code
POG Che toee Sead cen ecsesuceeenene 4, 5, 11, 18, 19
SPP reece er eer rr 4,5, 11, 18, 19, 35
LS 5's s ene beh 6 06 ¥-ROwd TORRE CO passim
EN 60 5 64.46.00 4.46 66d 0S wk OSPR RRR KE 15, 22
eee ere 15, 17, 26
OUR SIRMN GS fa viediavscssccesocsccecsscvcccees 11, 12, 19
SS a a 5
Los Angeles Municipal Code
POSSE ARGS VOL GGb cs ebiN ANN 0k4 54604800480 6
Rules
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT
Sarees ae OU a a se en's Cake an l

I, Fen oe a a iat Te et

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386019_1004%3A7. Public record. Not legal advice.