Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the absence of time limits for the municipality to process permit applications did not render a content-neutral sign ordinance unconstitutional
• holding that “time limits are not per se required when the licensing scheme at issue is content-neutral”
• finding that plaintiff was not entitled to actual damages for violation of the First Amendment because it suffered no actual injury
• noting that “we [were] reluctant to invalidate an entire legitimately-enacted ordinance absent more of a showing it is as problematic as [the plaintiff] claims”
• determining that the sign company was not a prevailing party because it failed to obtain permission to erect its signs
• rejecting argument that “lack of specific time limits confers excessive discretion” and holding that any “‘abuse must be dealt with if and when a pattern of unlawful favoritism appears’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).