Legal Opinion
105 Floyd Road, Inc. v. Crisp County
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided May 23, 2005No. S05A0373PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HUNSTEIN, Justice.
This case involves a constitutional challenge on vagueness grounds to the phrase “substantial business purpose” in the definition of “sexually-oriented adult use” contained in Section 3.01.02 of the Crisp County Unified Land Development Code. That section defines a “sexually-oriented adult use” as “[a]ny establishment that, as a regular and substantial business purpose, offers services, ... or materials in print or in any photographic or recorded media that [involve or depict certain defined sexually-explicit activities or anatomical areas], with the intent of providing…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Parrish v. LammSupreme Court of Colorado · 1988
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- VIP OF BERLIN, LLC v. Town of BerlinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2010
- Burton v. Glynn CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 2015
- ROCKDALE COUNTY. v. U. S. ENTERPRISES, INC.; And Vice VersaSupreme Court of Georgia · 2021
- VIP OF BERLIN, LLC v. Town of BerlinDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2009
- 105 Floyd Road, Inc. v. Crisp CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 2005
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.