Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)

Citation
Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)
Parent Document
Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)
Jurisdiction
Montana (state)
Effective Date
2008-12-16

Other Sections in This Document (1000)

Full Text

796 chars
¶52 In sum, we agree with the City that it could not lawfully have regulated the particular viewpoints expressed by speakers related to Denke’s 1999 Human Rights complaint during the February 14 council meeting. We also conclude that the City may impose reasonable and viewpoint-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the purpose of conducting its council meetings in an efficient and orderly manner. In so holding, we caution that failing to impose such restrictions does not necessarily constitute unlawful retaliation. That question depends on the laws defining and prohibiting unlawful retaliation; and with respect to the February 14 council meeting, the *340hearing examiner must complete the retaliation analysis in the first instance on remand. III. The Immunity Issue