official site the pittsburgh

Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside

Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside

In Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494 n.5 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld.
In Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 6 the United States Supreme Court passed upon the validity of one such drug paraphernalia.
Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,. 102 S. Ct. 1186 In Village of Hojiman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffnan Estates, Inc.,' the. Supreme Court addressed for the.
A business must also file affidavits that the licensee and its employees have not been convicted of a drug-related offense. California Medical Association v. A business person of ordinary intelligence would understand that this term refers to the design of the manufacturer, not Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside intent of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside retailer or customer. Obviously, plaintiff was not hampered by any vagueness in the words of the subject ordinance. Political literature itself could not be prohibited, but merchants would be discouraged from displaying it for fear that the tobacco pipes and papers that they were also selling would suddenly become drug paraphernalia. Also, with respect to printed matter rather than paraphernalia, the Fifth Circuit found unconstitutional a statute prohibiting sale of drug-related printed material to minors. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons as principal, clerk, red white and blue ash 2016 or servant to sell any items, effect, paraphernalia, accessory or thing which is designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs, as defined by Illinois Revised Statutes, without obtaining a license therefor.