Higgins v. City of Vallejo

considering a similar ordinance regulating adult entertainment, and concluding that “[t]he district court did not err in holding that such regulation of female breasts is substantially related to the City’s interest in regulation” | considering a similar ordinance regulating adult entertainment, and concluding that "[t]he district court did not err in holding that such regulation of female breasts is substantially related to the City's interest in regulation" | unlike Yard-Man court, court found no inference of intent to vest benefits; court examined contractual language and extrinsic evidence | unlike Yard-Man court, court found no inference of intent to vest benefits; court examined contractual language and extrinsic evidence | plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving vested welfare benefits where an employer promised to provide welfare benefits "until death of retiree" where the employer had expressly reserved the right to terminate or amend the plan | plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving vested welfare benefits where an employer promised to provide welfare benefits “until death of retiree” where the employer had expressly reserved the right to terminate or amend the plan | same; suggesting failure to define terms would render statute impermissibly vague | plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving vested welfare benefits where an employer promised to provide welfare benefits “until death of retiree” where the employer had expressly reserved the right to terminate or amend the plan