Legal Opinion
Howard Opera House Associates v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.
District Court, D. Vermont
Decided February 2, 2001No. 2:99-CV-140PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
SESSIONS, District Judge.
Defendant Urban Outfitters Inc. (“Urban Outfitters”) has moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking dismissal of Count II of Plaintiffs’ *561amended complaint, on the grounds that the City of Burlington’ s (“City’s”) noise ordinance is unconstitutional, facially and as applied. For the reasons that follow, Urban Outfitters’ motion is denied.
Background,
This matter involves a dispute in which landlord Howard Opera House Associates (“HOHA”) and one of its tenants, the law firm of O’Neill…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. CornwellOhio Court of Appeals · 2002
- GENCO IMPORTING INC. v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Harlem Yacht Club v. New York City Environmental Control BoardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Howard Opera House Assoc. v. Urban OutfittersDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 2001