Ohio Valley Electric Railway Co. v. Scott

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that an action seeking a declaration as to the constitutionality of sign restrictions is not subject to the two-year statute of limitations period
• finding that statute of limitations did not bar facial challenge to ordinance on First Amendment grounds because the claim alleged an ongoing harm
• engaging in an extensive analysis of a facial challenge to a commercial-speech regulation at the motion to dismiss stage and concluding that more information was needed as to the “reasonable fit” factor
• “Arguments raised for the first time in reply briefs are ordinarily waived.” (citing Carroll v. Lynch, 698 F.3d 561, 564 n.2 (7th Cir. 2012))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).