| dbo:abstract |
Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines as they apply to restrictions on commercial speech. The justices unanimously upheld an ordinance passed by a Chicago suburb that imposed licensing requirements on the sale of drug paraphernalia by a local record store. Their decision overturned the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Concerned that the sale of items such as bongs and rolling papers, along with books and magazines devoted to the era's drug culture promoted and encouraged illegal recreational drug use, the board of trustees of the village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, passed an ordinance requiring that vendors of drug paraphernalia obtain a license to do so, as they lacked the power to ban their sale outright. As a condition of that license, they were required to keep a record of the name and address of anyone buying such items for inspection by the police at any time. One of the two stores it applied to, The Flipside, filed suit in federal court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking to have the ordinance invalidated, claiming its scope was so wide and overbroad as to possibly prevent the store from selling the books and magazines, thus infringing its First Amendment rights. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote for the Supreme Court that the village's ordinance was neither vague nor overbroad since it clearly defined the items affected and only explicitly prohibited marketing that alluded to their use in consuming illegal controlled substances. Byron White wrote a separate concurrence arguing that the Court need only have considered the vagueness issue since the Seventh Circuit had not considered the overbreadth claim. John Paul Stevens took no part in the case. In the wake of the case many more communities began enacting and enforcing drug-paraphernalia laws, greatly curtailing their sale. It has not had much impact since then, or outside that narrow area of law, but it did establish two important precedents for later cases concerning the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines. In the former area, it clarified an earlier ruling and stated explicitly that the doctrine does not apply to commercial speech; in the latter, it established that a statute challenged for vagueness on its face, prior to enforcement, must be "impermissibly vague in all its applications" for the plaintiff to prevail. It also established that laws regulating economic activity, already held to a lower standard for vagueness since businesspeople can reasonably be expected to know their industry and its products, have an even lower standard to meet when they only call for civil penalties. (en) |
| dbo:thumbnail |
wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/ONE_GIRL_SMOKES_POT_W...WITH..._-_NARA_-_554906.jpg?width=300 |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink |
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/455/489.html https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=11091688353694401868 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=13213955592475605641 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=17372245369577800580 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/455/489/ https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_1681/argument/ https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_1681/opinion https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-1681 http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep455/usrep455489/usrep455489.pdf |
| dbo:wikiPageID |
36131311 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageLength |
88282 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID |
1072461890 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink |
dbr:California_Courts_of_Appeal dbr:Campbell_University dbr:Cannabis_(drug) dbr:Carolyn_Dineen_King dbr:Amicus_curiae dbc:Hoffman_Estates,_Illinois dbc:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit_cases dbr:Potter_Stewart dbr:Precedent dbr:Prior_restraint dbr:Quaker_Bridge_Mall dbr:Sam_Sparks dbr:Sandra_Day_O'Connor dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment dbr:Nachman_Ben-Yehuda dbr:Harlington_Wood,_Jr. dbr:By_designation dbr:Anti-homelessness_legislation dbr:Hoffman_Estates,_Illinois dbr:Hypodermic_needle dbr:John_Paul_Stevens dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_455 dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Burger_Court dbr:List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States dbr:Robert_Arthur_Sprecher dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eighth_Circuit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Kansas dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Oregon dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_Illinois dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Western_District_of_Texas dbr:United_States_Supreme_Court dbr:Virginia_State_Pharmacy_Board_v._Virginia_Citizens_Consumer_Council dbr:Void_for_vagueness dbr:Deductible dbr:Due_Process_Clause dbr:Due_process dbr:Initiative dbr:Alligator_clip dbr:Strict_liability dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:Counterculture_of_the_1960s dbr:McGowan_v._Maryland dbr:Transferred_intent dbr:Strict_scrutiny dbr:Village_(United_States) dbr:Wilbur_Frank_Pell,_Jr. dbr:Civil_penalty dbr:Cocaine dbr:Cocaine_(song) dbr:George_N._Leighton dbr:Glad_(company) dbr:Bowl_(smoking) dbr:Concurring_opinion dbr:Copayment dbr:Equal_Protection_Clause dbr:Erich_Goode dbr:Oral_argument dbr:Rolling_Stone_(magazine) dbr:Annie_Hall dbr:Anthony_Vollack dbr:Antioch,_Illinois dbc:Overbreadth_case_law dbr:Chiropractic dbr:Colorado_Supreme_Court dbr:Commerce_Clause dbr:Commercial_speech dbr:Ziploc dbr:Joseph_Schlitz_Brewing_Company dbr:Operation_Pipe_Dreams dbr:Point_of_sale dbr:Popular_culture dbr:Robinson–Patman_Act dbr:Austin,_Texas dbr:Burger_Court dbr:Byron_White dbc:1982_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_equal_protection_case_law dbc:Void_for_vagueness_case_law dbr:Thurgood_Marshall dbr:Timothy_Leary dbr:Tommy_Chong dbr:West_Allis,_Wisconsin dbr:West_Carrollton,_Ohio dbr:William_G._East dbr:William_O._Douglas dbr:Wilmette,_Illinois dbr:Dissenting_opinion dbr:Drug_culture dbr:Head_shop dbr:Joint_(cannabis) dbr:Local_ordinance dbr:Overbreadth_doctrine dbr:Alternative_lifestyle dbc:United_States_commercial_speech_case_law dbr:Drug_Enforcement_Administration dbr:Drug_paraphernalia dbr:Dunhill_(cigar) dbc:United_States_statutory_interpretation_case_law dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Brief_(law) dbr:Judicial_notice dbr:Municipal_corporation dbr:Roach_clip dbr:Statutory_construction dbr:List_of_Schedule_V_drugs_(US) dbr:Drug_abuse dbr:Recreational_drug_use dbr:Remand_(court_procedure) dbr:Henry_George_Templar dbr:High_Times dbr:Attorney_general dbr:Jacobellis_v._Ohio dbc:United_States_controlled_substances_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Burger_Court dbr:Affidavit dbr:Chilling_effect_(law) dbc:Drug_paraphernalia dbr:L._Ed._2d dbr:Lawrence_Township,_Mercer_County,_New_Jersey dbr:Leary_v._United_States dbr:Cocaine_spoon dbr:Holding_(law) dbr:Referendum dbr:Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 dbr:Bong dbr:Bookmaker dbr:Pittsburgh_Press_Co._v._Pittsburgh_Commission_on_Human_Relations dbr:Circular_reasoning dbr:Papachristou_v._Jacksonville dbr:National_Lampoon_(magazine) dbr:Nebbia_v._New_York dbr:New_York_University_School_of_Law dbr:Newark,_New_Jersey dbr:Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr. dbr:Certiorari dbr:Search_warrant dbr:Selective_enforcement dbr:Probable_cause dbr:Preliminary_injunction dbr:I_know_it_when_I_see_it dbr:Impulse_purchase dbr:Shoplifting dbr:Plaintiff dbr:Cheech_and_Chong dbr:National_Organization_for_the_Reform_of_Marijuana_Laws dbr:Walter_J._Cummings,_Jr. dbr:Scienter dbr:Marijuana dbr:Severability dbr:Injunctive_relief dbr:John_Marshall_Law_School_(Chicago) dbr:Rolling_paper dbr:Respondeat_superior dbr:Rational_basis_review dbr:Antitrust dbr:Pier_1 dbr:Legal_precedent dbr:Smoking_pipe_(tobacco) dbr:Declaratory_relief dbr:Loophole_(law) dbr:Cannabis_drug_(drug) dbr:File:ONE_GIRL_SMOKES_POT_WHILE_HER_FRI...S._(TAKEN_WITH..._-_NARA_-_554906.jpg dbr:Nash_v._United_States dbr:File:Pipe_Dreams_by_David_Shankbone.jpg dbr:Grayned_v._City_of_Rockford |
| dbp:arguedate |
0001-12-09 (xsd:gMonthDay) |
| dbp:argueyear |
1981 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:case |
Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., (en) |
| dbp:concurrence |
White (en) |
| dbp:decidedate |
0001-03-03 (xsd:gMonthDay) |
| dbp:decideyear |
1982 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:findlaw |
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/455/489.html |
| dbp:fullname |
Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (en) |
| dbp:googlescholar |
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=11091688353694401868 |
| dbp:holding |
Municipal ordinance imposing licensing and other requirements on sale of drug paraphernalia was not facially an overbroad restriction on speech as overbreadth doctrine does not apply to commercial speech; facial challenge as vague fails where plaintiff cannot demonstrate law was impermissibly vague in all its applications, and as economic regulation providing only for civil penalties standard for vagueness is lower. Seventh Circuit reversed. (en) |
| dbp:italicTitle |
force (en) |
| dbp:joinmajority |
Burger, Brennan, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor (en) |
| dbp:justia |
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/455/489/ |
| dbp:lawsapplied |
dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution |
| dbp:litigants |
Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside (en) |
| dbp:loc |
http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep455/usrep455489/usrep455489.pdf |
| dbp:majority |
Marshall (en) |
| dbp:notparticipating |
Stevens (en) |
| dbp:opinionannouncement |
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_1681/opinion |
| dbp:oralargument |
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_1681/argument/ |
| dbp:oyez |
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-1681 |
| dbp:parallelcitations |
172800.0 |
| dbp:prior |
17280.0 |
| dbp:uspage |
489 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:usvol |
455 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate |
dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Convert dbt:Inflation dbt:Inflation-fn dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Quote dbt:Reflist dbt:Ussc dbt:US1stAmendment |
| dcterms:subject |
dbc:Hoffman_Estates,_Illinois dbc:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:Overbreadth_case_law dbc:1982_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_equal_protection_case_law dbc:Void_for_vagueness_case_law dbc:United_States_commercial_speech_case_law dbc:United_States_statutory_interpretation_case_law dbc:United_States_controlled_substances_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Burger_Court dbc:Drug_paraphernalia |
| rdf:type |
owl:Thing dbo:Case dbo:LegalCase dbo:UnitOfWork wikidata:Q2334719 yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase |
| rdfs:comment |
Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines as they apply to restrictions on commercial speech. The justices unanimously upheld an ordinance passed by a Chicago suburb that imposed licensing requirements on the sale of drug paraphernalia by a local record store. Their decision overturned the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (en) |
| rdfs:label |
Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (en) |
| owl:sameAs |
freebase:Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. yago-res:Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. wikidata:Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. https://global.dbpedia.org/id/4mtDe |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom |
wikipedia-en:Hoffman_Estates_v._The_Flipside,_Hoffman_Estates,_Inc.?oldid=1072461890&ns=0 |
| foaf:depiction |
wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/ONE_GIRL_SMOKES_POT_W...S._(TAKEN_WITH..._-_NARA_-_554906.jpg wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Pipe_Dreams_by_David_Shankbone.jpg |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf |
wikipedia-en:Hoffman_Estates_v._The_Flipside,_Hoffman_Estates,_Inc. |
| foaf:name |
(en) Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (en) |
| is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates of |
dbr:Flipside |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of |
dbr:Hoffman_Estates_v._The_Flipside,_Hoffman_Estates,_Inc dbr:Hoffman_Estates_v_The_Flipside,_Hoffman_Estates,_Inc. dbr:455_U.S._489 |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of |
dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Burger_Court dbr:United_States_v._Approximately_64,695_Pounds_of_Shark_Fins dbr:Hoffman_Estates_v._The_Flipside,_Hoffman_Estates,_Inc dbr:Hoffman_Estates_v_The_Flipside,_Hoffman_Estates,_Inc. dbr:Overbreadth_doctrine dbr:455_U.S._489 dbr:Drug_paraphernalia dbr:Flipside dbr:Vagueness_doctrine |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of |
wikipedia-en:Hoffman_Estates_v._The_Flipside,_Hoffman_Estates,_Inc. |
