Merriam v. Bryan

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 City’s ordinance “violates the First Amendment because it regulates noncommercial speech on the basis of content”
• holding that public officials had “unbridled discretion” in deciding whether to grant a permit for erection of a sign or structure where officials could deny the permit when the structure or sign was “detrimental to the aesthetic quality of the community”
• holding that public officials had \unbridled discretion\ in deciding whether to grant a permit for erection of a sign or structure where officials could deny the permit when the structure or sign was \detrimental to the aesthetic quality of the community\
• holding that public officials had “unbridled discretion” in deciding whether to grant a permit for erection of a sign or structure where officials could deny the permit when the structure or sign was “detrimental to the aesthetic quality of the community”
• holding void for vagueness a city ordinance that permitted city officials to deny a permit for a structure or sign “without offering any evidence to support the conclusion that a particular structure or sign is detrimental to the community”
• holding void for vagueness a city ordinance that permitted city officials to deny a permit for a structure or sign \without offering any evidence to support the conclusion that a particular structure or sign is detrimental to the community\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).