Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• limiting constitutional analysis under overbreadth doctrine to “Sections 7.00.01, 7.00.08, and 7.03.01 of Ordinance 99-51” because plaintiff was allegedly injured under those sections
• “[W]e consider only the constitutionality of Ordinance 99-51 .... [specifically, we consider appel-lees’ facial challenges to sections 7.00.01, 7.00.08, and 7.03.01 of Ordinance 99-51.”
• Even though we considered only challenges to sections 7.00.01, 7.00.08, and 7.03.01 of Ordinance 99-51, we concluded that “[b]oth appellees have standing to challenge Ordinance 99-51.”
• Even though we considered only challenges to sections 7.00.01, 7.00.08, and 7.03.01 of Ordinance 99-51, we concluded that \[b]oth appellees have standing to challenge Ordinance 99-51.\
• internal quotations omitted; citing Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 501 (1981)
• an ordinance that provides the deci-sionmaker thirty days to deny or approve a completed sign. application and twenty days to notify the applicant of any deficiency in the application complies with constitutional requirements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).