rejecting vagueness challenge to entertainment permit ordinance designed to fight noise that turned on a "substantially adverse impact"
Summary of this case from URI Student Senate v. Town of NarragansettNo. 97-15328.
February 2, 1998.
D.Ariz., 950 F.Supp. 968.
Appeal Dismissed; Remanded
rejecting vagueness challenge to entertainment permit ordinance designed to fight noise that turned on a "substantially adverse impact"
Summary of this case from URI Student Senate v. Town of Narragansettrejecting vagueness challenge to entertainment permit ordinance designed to fight noise that turned on a "substantially adverse impact"
Summary of this case from Senate v. Town of Narragansettstating that in the absence of the company's insolvency, “there could be no loss; no cause of action accrued unless and until [the company] became insolvent”
Summary of this case from Arch Ins. Co. v. Sunset Fin. Servs., Inc.stating that in the absence of the company's insolvency, “there could be no loss; no cause of action accrued unless and until [the company] became insolvent”
Summary of this case from Arch Ins. Co. v. Sunset Fin. Servs., Inc.Full title:GST Tucson Lightwave, Inc. v. City of Tucson
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Date published: Feb 2, 1998
The LIFE Act does not apply to class members in the present litigation, for whom, therefore, 8 U.S.C. §…
Alvarado Orthopedic Research, L.P. v. Linvatec Corp."When the moving party has the burden of proof at trial, that party must carry its initial burden at summary…