Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Smith v. City of New Orleans, 06-30296 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-30296 Visitors: 30
Filed: Feb. 12, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit February 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-30296 SIDNEY SMITH; HAUNTED HISTORY TOURS, INC.; MAUREEN KING; LAWRENCE C. BARTHE; KATHRYN O’CONNOR; PAUL CHASSE; CARLA BOULLION; RICK HICKS; RUDY ARCEO; NANCY CONNOLLY; KALILA SMITH; RENE LAIZER; SAMANTHA FINSTAD; BRETT THOMAS; KEVIN LEPINE; MIDIAN VON THORNE; CHARLES DUFFY; MIKE DARDANT; BERT ESTEVES Plaintiffs - Appellants VERSUS CI
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit February 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-30296 SIDNEY SMITH; HAUNTED HISTORY TOURS, INC.; MAUREEN KING; LAWRENCE C. BARTHE; KATHRYN O’CONNOR; PAUL CHASSE; CARLA BOULLION; RICK HICKS; RUDY ARCEO; NANCY CONNOLLY; KALILA SMITH; RENE LAIZER; SAMANTHA FINSTAD; BRETT THOMAS; KEVIN LEPINE; MIDIAN VON THORNE; CHARLES DUFFY; MIKE DARDANT; BERT ESTEVES Plaintiffs - Appellants VERSUS CITY OF NEW ORLEANS Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans 2:03-CV-2531 Before DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges, and CRONE*, District Judge. PER CURIAM:** The appellant challenges the district court’s order following a bench trial denying plaintiff’s application to enjoin the enforcement of an ordinance establishing restrictions on walking * District Judge of the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. ** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. tour guides in the City of New Orleans. Based on our review of the record along with the briefs of the parties and argument of counsel, we affirm the judgment of the district court essentially for the reasons stated in its February 2, 2006, Order and Reasons. AFFIRMED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer