Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.
1986 United States Supreme Court case

Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that localities may impose regulations prohibiting adult theaters from operating within certain areas, finding that the regulation in question was a content-neutral time/place/manner restriction. The specific restriction at issue was established by Renton, Washington, and prohibited adult theaters within 1,000 feet from any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school.
See also
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 475
References
External links
Text of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress
Eleanor Boba, "U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of City of Renton in Playtime Theatres Case on February 25, 1986," HistoryLink Essay no. 20667, 3 December 2018, [1].
“Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.” enters the record as 1986 United States Supreme Court case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Renton, Playtime and Theatres can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Renton, Playtime and Theatres provides the most credible route into that argument.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7313560. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1986 and 2018.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. primary sources, Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. archive and Renton research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.