City of Watseka v. Illinois Public Action Council
Cases that cite this one
59 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Englewood (6th Cir. 2012)
- Project 80's, Inc. And David John Fitzen v. City of Pocatello and the City of Idaho Falls, Idaho (9th Cir. 1989)
- Project 80's, Inc. And David John Fitzen v. City of Pocatello and the City of Idaho Falls, Idaho (9th Cir. 1988)
- Prison Legal News v. Babeu (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2013)
- Citizen Action Fund D/B/A Louisiana Citizen Action v. City of Morgan City (5th Cir. 1998)
- Mitchell v. Commission on Adult Entertainment Establishments (3d Cir. 1993)
- Loper v. New York City Police Department (District Court, S.D. New York 1992)
- Ass'n of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. City of Dearborn (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1988)
- Woodard v. United States (D.C. 1988)
- Miller-Wohl Co. v. Commissioner of Labor & Industry (Mont. 1987)
- Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Seven Hills (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1999)
- Ex Parte Tucci (Tex. 1993)
- Dennis J. Domegan v. Joseph Ponte, (Two Cases) (1st Cir. 1992)
- Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)
- Sdj, Inc., D/B/A Sugar Babes v. The City of Houston (5th Cir. 1988)
- City of Hillsboro v. Purcell (Or. 1988)
- David Earl Wilson v. Robert H. Butler, Sr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Louisiana (5th Cir. 1987)
- Pursley v. City of Fayetteville (8th Cir. 1987)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. City of New York (Supreme Court of the United States 2020)
- Kevin King v. Chuck Zamiara (6th Cir. 2015)
- Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Town of Yorktown (District Court, S.D. Indiana 2014)
- Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Town of East Greenwich Ex Rel. Town Council Members (District Court, D. Rhode Island 2006)
- Housing Works, Inc. v. Turner (District Court, S.D. New York 2005)
- Mark G. Weinberg v. City of Chicago (7th Cir. 2002)
- Citizen Action Fund v. City of Morgan City (5th Cir. 1998)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Affirmed on appeal from C. A. 7th Cir.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in this case that a city ordinance limiting door-to-door soliciting to the hours between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Saturday, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 796 F. 2d 1547 (1986). It is undisputed that the ordinance is content neutral. The purpose of the ordinance is to protect citizens’ privacy and to prevent crime, obviously legitimate governmental objectives as the Court of Appeals recognized. The Court of Appeals nevertheless concluded that the ordinance im-permissibly restricted First Amendment activities because the city had less restrictive alternatives to accomplish its objectives. We have held, however, that a time, place, and manner restriction is valid if it is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and leaves open ample alternative channels for communication of the information, and we have not imposed the requirement that the restriction be the least restrictive means available. See Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 293-294 (1984); see also Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U. S. 641, 657 (1984) (“The less-restrictive-alternative analysis . . . has never been a part of the inquiry into the validity of a time, place, and manner regulation. It is enough that the ... restriction substantially serves the Government’s legitimate ends”) (opinion of White, J.). Because the decision below departs from this standard, I would note probable jurisdiction.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.