You need a legal brief that includes: Identification, Facts, Issue, Rule Analysis, Holding for that attached case - Harley Davidson V. Grottanelli 164F.

OVERVIEW Of the Case:

Plaintiffs had challenged prior versions of Indiana's curfew law and an Indianapolis curfew ordinance, with varying success. They contended that the law as amended was unconstitutional because, inter alia, it impermissibly infringed on the rights of parents to control the upbringing of their children.

The court first granted defendants' motion to strike the testimony of plaintiffs' experts after finding that his opinions regarding the efficacy of curfew laws in reducing juvenile crime were irrelevant and immaterial. However, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and held that the curfew law was unconstitutional.

Although the State had a compelling interest in reducing juvenile crime and victimization, the evidence showed that most juvenile crime took place during hours when the curfew was not in effect and the law was not sufficiently narrow to serve the State's interest.

Therefore, the law infringed on the fundamental right of parents to direct the care, custody, and control of their children. Accordingly, plaintiffs could demonstrate no adequate remedy at law, irreparable harm, and that the balance of harms favored an injunction and an injunction would serve the public interest.

Attachment:- CASE SUMMARY.rar