Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Lippoldt v. Cole

468 F.3d 1204 (2006)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 30,900+ case briefs...

Lippoldt v. Cole

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

468 F.3d 1204 (2006)


Operation Save America (OSA), a group of volunteers who opposed abortion, along with OSA director Philip Benham and OSA-Wichita volunteer Donna Lippoldt (the protestors) (plaintiffs) sued alleging the City of Wichita, deputy police chief Stephen Cole, and assistant city attorney Elizabeth Harlenske (defendants) violated the First Amendment by denying OSA parade permits. As part of planned annual protests, Lippoldt applied for permits for two parades daily for five days along a route including Bleckley Street, where a targeted abortion clinic was located, plus one parade downtown. Cole thought the situation warranted a denial and asked the city law department for an opinion and assistance. Harlenske researched relevant law and learned the government must have clear guidelines to restrict parades to avoid violating the Constitution. However, Harlenske drafted a letter denying the Bleckley Street permits for Cole to sign without suggesting alternatives, such as parades for a shorter period of time, stating that Bleckley Street “was not an acceptable location.” The day before the city issued its decision, the police closed Bleckley Street to vehicles except local traffic. The city claimed it denied permits because Bleckley Street was closed, making it no longer within the parade ordinance, and because the parades would interfere with local businesses in violation of a local city ordinance. Cole had approved other parades knowing they interfered with local businesses, and Harlenske acknowledged that the parade ordinance did not allow the city to deny permits solely on that basis. The court granted a temporary restraining order allowing OSA to hold the parades past the targeted clinic. After two years of discovery and motions practice, the court concluded Cole and Harlenske violated the protestors’ constitutional rights and awarded the protestors nominal damages of $1. Cole and Harlenske appealed, arguing they did not cause the deprivation of the protestors’ rights because they were subordinates to those who actually decided to deny the permits.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Briscoe, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 552,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 552,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 552,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 30,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership