signlaw.com

Welcome to Randal Morrison's signlaw.com, an informational website on the American law of signs, billboards, outdoor advertising, newsracks, public forum and other First Amendment / zoning topics.

SIGN REGULATION - PUBLIC FORUM BULLETIN - a free newsletter featuring quick-read summaries of new cases on sign regulation, public forum and related topics, distributed only by email. Read the Spring 2008 issue here, the Summer 2007 issue here, and the Summer 2006 issue here.

If you wish to receive future issues of the free newsletter, register here.

A survey of past cases on signs and billboards decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

U.S. SUPREME COURT - CURRENT AND RECENT CASES

Petitions pending:

Artistic Murals or Oversize Advertising Signs? Beverly Blvd. v. West Hollywood concerns multi-story images ("tall wall signs") installed on the sides of an office building on the famed Sunset Blvd. In an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit held that one image (an Andy Warhol painting) was a decorative display and not within the definition of "advertising" as used in state law (B&P 5412). However, the other image (a Veteran’s mural) was advertising because it contained lettering. Because the Vet’s ad was not "lawfully erected," there was no protectable property interest in the images, and thus there could be no "taking" of property. (9^th Cir Nos 05-55961, 05-55970, 05-56384, June 5, 2007, not officially published, not citeable, not precedential, available at: 238 Fed.Appx. 210, 2007 WL 1649843).

Beverly’s petition: The city’s rules about tall wall signs serves only the esthetic interest, which is insufficient justification. The Ninth Circuit used the wrong definition of "property." The case should be used to re-examine the Central Hudson test for restrictions on commercial speech, and to dispel the confusion created by the five-opinion decision in Metromedia v. San Diego (1981).

West Hollywood’s opposition: The "tall wall" rules serve both the esthetic and safety interests; the regulation "merely limits the zone in which enormous, multi-story signs may be erected. And it does not distinguish between commercial and noncommercial speech." Since the Ninth Circuit decision is not officially published, it is not precedential and therefore is not a good vehicle for revisiting Central Hudson or Metromedia.

[Another West Hollywood / tall wall case: Regency Outdoor v. West Hollywood, 153 CalApp4th 825 (2007) (corporation did not have standing to challenge "tall wall sign" rules under the California Environmental Quality Act); another oversize mural case: People v. Stross, 2008 WL 466996 (MI App No 271764, Feb 21, 2008]

Permit Processing Time. In Covenant Media SC v. North Charleston, 493 F3d 421(2007)

the Fourth Circuit held that billboard permits were properly denied because the proposed billboard violated a separation between signs rule. Further, since the sign regulation was content neutral, explicit time limitations on decision making were not constitutionally required. The sign company’s petition sought review on the decision time issue. Petition denied, US Supreme No 07-587, Jan. 7, 2008, 128 SCt 914, 76 USLW 3345, 3336, 255 [Disclosure: Randal Morrison defended the City of North Charleston.]

Car for Sale. Resident challenged city’s ban on parking private cars with "for sale" sign on public street. Held: a fifteen judge ("en banc") panel of the Sixth Circuit ruled 8 -7 that the city had not provided evidence to show the rule actually advanced the city’s interests, and could not be viewed as content neutral, time place and manner rule. Pagan v. Fruchey, 492 F3d 766 (6^th Cir No 04-4414, June 29, 2007). Petition denied by US Supreme Dec 3, 2007 (No 07-420, 128 SCt 711, 169 LEd2d 554, 76 USLW 3286, 3287).

MORE US SUPREME COURT RECENT CASES: here.

A survey of U.S. Supreme Court past cases on signs and billboards.