TABLE OF CITATIONSCASE: PAGE
1Sabelko v City of Phoenix, 846 F. Supp 8225, 10, 11, 122Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement,112 S.Ct. 23955, 11, 123Revised Arizona Jury Instructions8Rule 3(b), (c) of Rules of Procedure for Special Action10, 114Hynes v Mayor & Council of Oradell, 96S.Ct. 1755105Grayned v City of Rockford , 92 S.Ct. 229412, 156Wright v U.S Army, 307 F.Supp.2d 1065127Cox v State of Louisiana, 85 S.Ct. at 463128State v. Brown, 207 Ariz. 23110, 12, 13, 159Coates v. Cincinnatti, 91 S.Ct. 16861110Gregory v City of Chicago, 89 S.Ct. 9461511Arizona Right to Life Political Action vBayless, 320 F.3d 10021612Boos v Barry, 108 S.Ct. 115716
The foundational issue of this case, in which Tucson City Mayor Bob Walkup has arbitrarily and capriciously employed the“Civility Accord” and a “Mayor and Council Meetings PublicParticipation” rule, (hereinafter referred to as “The Rule”), to block public commentary he deems “uncivil, impertinent andslanderous,” presents constitutional issues of great publicsignificance and statewide importance.