Legal Opinion
Gardner v. City of Columbus
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided March 14, 1988No. 87-3302PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.
Appellants, William Gardner, Kenneth Bauman, Jim Brady and Foggy Daze International, Inc., appeal from the judgment of the district court in favor of the City of *1274Columbus, the city treasurer, and the clerk of the Parking Violations Bureau (PVB)1 in their suit challenging the constitutionality of Chapter 2150 of the Columbus City Code.2 For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
I
The facts in this case were not in dispute. The parties submitted agreed stipulated facts and exhibits to the district court. The court then made the following…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Rochin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Weaver v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Ada Van Harken v. City of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
- Ricky Newell v. Robert Brown, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1993
- Norton v. City of ChicagoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1997
- Horn v. City of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988
- Shavitz v. City of High PointDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2003
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.