Legal Opinion
State v. Immelt
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided June 8, 2009No. 60991-2-IPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGrosse, J.
¶1 A duly enacted ordinance proscribing the honking of a horn for other than public safety reasons is entitled to a presumption of constitutionality. Horn honking per se is not free speech. Here, the context in which the defendant repeatedly honked her car horn did not constitute speech as there was no particularized message. The RALJ court is affirmed.
FACTS
¶2 Helen Immelt lives on a cul-de-sac in a development governed by restrictive covenants. On May 9, 2006, the neighborhood homeowners’ association sent Immelt a letter informing her that the covenants prohibited her from keeping chickens…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Texas v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Cox v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- State v. GunwallWashington Supreme Court · 1986
- Spence v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- City of Spokane v. DouglassWashington Supreme Court · 1990
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. ImmeltWashington Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. HainesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
- State v. HainesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009