Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
From: preece@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Did the Supreme Court Really Back Mo - (nf)
Message-ID: <3135@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Oct-83 22:57:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3135
Posted: Wed Oct  5 22:57:24 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Oct-83 17:22:33 EDT
Lines: 17

#R:ihuxf:-71200:uicsl:4300093:000:657
uicsl!preece    Oct  5 09:55:00 1983

       Didn't the Supreme Court	merely say it was not going to hear
       the case?
----------
Yes, though I wasn't aware of the fact at the time I wrote. On the other
hand, in this particular case I suspect it amounts to the same thing.
Perhaps a lawyer on the net could explain the precedential difference.
Certainly the result is that the Morton Grove ordinance is allowed
to stand, so I would expect many other communities to consider such
rules on the assumption that the Court is unlikely to reverse them.
What did not come out of the case is any opinion on the extent to
which such powers can be exercised.

scott preece
pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece