United States Sixth Circuit

Defendant-Township's ordinance, enacted to minimize the adverse secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses, does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/21/2005
• Published 06/21/2005

Judges

• Before:  BOGGS, Chief Judge;  MARTIN, BATCHELDER, DAUGHTREY, MOORE, COLE, CLAY, GILMAN, GIBBONS, ROGERS, SUTTON, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED: H. Louis Sirkin, Sirkin, Pinales, Mezibov & Schwartz, Cincinnati, Ohio, Bradley J. Shafer, Shafer & Associates, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Stephen P. Carney, Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, Lawrence Edward Barbiere, Schroeder, Maundrell, Barbiere & Powers, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF: H. Louis Sirkin, Jennifer M. Kinsley, Sirkin, Pinales, Mezibov & Schwartz, Cincinnati, Ohio, Bradley J. Shafer, Shafer & Associates, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Stephen P. Carney, Douglas R. Cole, Sharon A. Jennings, Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, Lawrence Edward Barbiere, Schroeder, Maundrell, Barbiere & Powers, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees. Scott D. Bergthold, Law Office of Scott D. Bergthold, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Jack R. Burns, Bellevue, Washington, for Amici Curiae.