Cincinnati v. Fourth Natl. Realty, L.L.C.

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 1868

Syllabus

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – MUNICIPAL – ZONING – JURISDICTION – R.C. 2721.12 – STANDING: Where defendant had challenged two zoning provisions that regulated the content of advertising signs as being unconstitutionally overbroad because they restricted protected noncommercial speech, and where amendments to the zoning code that occurred during the course of litigation resulted in those provisions no longer restricting protected noncommercial speech, defendant's overbreadth challenge to the provisions was rendered moot. Defendant's constitutional challenge, as applied to a proposed legally-sized-off-site sign, to two zoning provisions that regulated the content of advertising signs based on whether they were classified as on-site or off-site was not rendered moot by amendments to the zoning code that occurred during the course of litigation where defendant's proposed sign was in violation of the provisions both before and after the amendments. Where, in a declaratory-judgment action, defendant served the Attorney General with its counterclaim that contained a constitutional challenge by personal service in accordance with Civ.R. 4.1, and where the Attorney General had time to review the matter and elected not to participate in the action, neither party was prejudiced by the late service on the Attorney General and the trial court did not err in determining that defendant had complied with R.C. 2721.12. Where defendant did not own the wall on which it sought to place an off-site sign, but defendant had obtained permission to hang its sign on the wall and would suffer financially if the city's off-site sign prohibition provisions were enforced, defendant had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the city's off-site sign prohibition provisions.