alternatives at the time it was passed, Renton would have virtually been a “non-case” — because there were no adult establishments in existence when the ordinance was passed, the ordinance could not have unconstitutionally limited them as of that time. The Court, of course, did not take this easy route, but rather evaluated the availability of alternatives at some date subsequent to enactment (precisely which date is unclear from the opinion). In doing so, the Court explained that “the First Amendment requires only that Renton refrain from effectively denying respondents a reasonable opportunity to open and operate an adult theater within the city.” Id. at 54, 106 S.Ct. 925 (emphasis added); see also Boss Capital, Inc. v. City of Casselberry, 187 F.3d 1251, 1254 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds by City of
holding that courts should consider a number of factors including the type and complexity of the case and whether the indigent is capable of adequately presenting the case holding that a prima facie case of discrimination is not established merely by the number of peremptory strikes against blacks in cases where the percentage of blacks on the empaneled jury is higher than the percentage of the venire pool recognizing that in determining numerosity courts must consider the geographical dispersion of the class the ease with which class members may be identified the nature of the action and the size of each plaintiffs claim holding that in evaluating adequacy courts may consider the communitys population and size the acreage available to adult businesses as a percentage of the overall size the location of available sites the number of adult businesses already in existence and the number of adult entertainment establishments wanting to operate in the community in the future holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion