Hicks v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partColeman, Judge
I concur with Part II of the majority opinion which holds that the circuit court did not err by refusing to remand the case to the general district court. However, I disagree with the majority’s holdings that Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s (RRHA’s) barment proceeding and “trespass policy” do not violate the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the barment procedure and trespass statute, as applied in this case, restrict conduct in a “non-public forum,” which…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- City of Chicago v. MoralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Marsh v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- United States v. KokindaSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama Ex Rel. FlowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.