Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Seattle v. Webster

Washington Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1990No. 56959-2Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partUtter, J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part)— This ordinance is overbroad without a narrowing construction. I concur in the majority's judgment on the other points raised. I write separately to urge a limiting construction and to expand on some points raised in the briefs.

I

Evaluation of an overbreadth claim requires the court to decide whether the ordinance before it sweeps within its prohibitions conduct protected by the First Amendment. See majority, at 640-41 (citing Seattle v. Huff, 111 Wn.2d 923, 925, 767 P.2d 572 (1989)). The First Amendment protects solicitation for charitable…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Griggs v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-ViolenceSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API