Candy Johnson and Princess Johnson v. Brian P. Tanguay

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “billboards by their very nature . . . can be perceived as an ‘esthetic harm’”
• holding that safety and aesthetics are legitimate government interests to further through sign ordinances
• holding that there can be no “substantial doubt that the twin goals that the ordinance seeks to further — traffic safety and the appearance of the city — are substantial governmental goals”
• ruling that an owner of billboards could challenge the facial validity of a statute on the basis that it infringed on the First Amendment rights of third parties
• concluding that a direct relation of a prohibition of off-site advertising to traffic safety “is not altered by the fact that the ordinance is underinclusive because it permits onsite advertising”
• recognizing that noncommercial speech is accorded greater protection under the First Amendment than is commercial speech and striking down ordinance that imposed a greater restriction on political than on commercial billboards

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).