<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Community Defense Counsel &#187; Regulation (SOB): Evidence</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/regulation-sob-evidence/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>Protecting Children and Their Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 May 2013 17:11:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court refuses to hear Alameda Books sexually oriented businesses case</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/11/28/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-alameda-books-sexually-oriented-businesses-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/11/28/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-alameda-books-sexually-oriented-businesses-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:16:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Alameda Books v. City of Los Angeles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2647</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, the U.S. Supreme Court <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112811zor.pdf">refused to hear</a> <em>Los Angeles v. Alameda Books</em> Nos. 11-245, 11-379.  Document related to that litigation, the 9th Circuit opinion, and a summary of the issues involved can be found at <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-november-22-2011/">SCOTUS Blog here</a>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/11/28/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-alameda-books-sexually-oriented-businesses-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit reinstates L.A. SOB ordinance</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/28/9th-circuit-reinstates-l-a-sob-ordinance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/28/9th-circuit-reinstates-l-a-sob-ordinance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:08:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2528</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/01/28/09-55367.pdf"><em>Alameda Books Inc. v. City of Los Angeles</em></a>, No. 09-55367 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2011)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/28/9th-circuit-reinstates-l-a-sob-ordinance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>11th Circuit: County studies documenting negative secondary effects are sufficient for prohibition of alcohol at sexually oriented businesses</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/16/11th-circuit-county-studies-documenting-negative-secondary-effects-are-sufficient-for-prohibition-of-alcohol-at-sexually-oriented-businesses/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/16/11th-circuit-county-studies-documenting-negative-secondary-effects-are-sufficient-for-prohibition-of-alcohol-at-sexually-oriented-businesses/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:57:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB): Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Alcohol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Flanigan's Enterprises Inc v Fulton County Ga]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1976</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200817035.pdf"><em>Flanigan’s  Enterprises, Inc. v. Fulton County, Ga.</em></a>, No. 08-17035 (11th  Cir., Feb. 16, 2010)

11th Circuit: County studies documenting negative secondary effects are sufficient for prohibition of alcohol at sexually oriented businesses.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/16/11th-circuit-county-studies-documenting-negative-secondary-effects-are-sufficient-for-prohibition-of-alcohol-at-sexually-oriented-businesses/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>7th Circuit: Secondary effects rationales supporting regulation of sexually oriented establishments with &#8220;live entertainment&#8221; might not support regulation of those without such &#8220;entertainment&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/10/7th-circuit-secondary-effects-rationales-supporting-regulation-of-sexually-oriented-establishments-with-live-entertainment-might-not-support-regulation-of-those-without-such-entertainment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/10/7th-circuit-secondary-effects-rationales-supporting-regulation-of-sexually-oriented-establishments-with-live-entertainment-might-not-support-regulation-of-those-without-such-entertainment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:41:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 7th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB): Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1265</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.communitydefense.org/cases/20090910.pdf"><em>New Albany DVD, LLC, v. New Albany</em></a>, No. 05-1286 (7th Cir., Sept. 10, 2009)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/10/7th-circuit-secondary-effects-rationales-supporting-regulation-of-sexually-oriented-establishments-with-live-entertainment-might-not-support-regulation-of-those-without-such-entertainment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>11th Circuit upholds Fla. county&#8217;s SOB ordinance against evidentiary challenge</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2008/09/10/11th-circuit-upholds-fla-countys-sob-ordinance-against-evidentiary-challenge/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2008/09/10/11th-circuit-upholds-fla-countys-sob-ordinance-against-evidentiary-challenge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:59:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB): Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Florida]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1171</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200714955.pdf"><em>5634 East Hillsborough Avenue, Inc. v. Hillsborough County</em></a>, No. 07-14955, 2008 WL 4276370 (11th Cir. Sept. 10, 2008)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2008/09/10/11th-circuit-upholds-fla-countys-sob-ordinance-against-evidentiary-challenge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
