Seay Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Mary Esther

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the alleged constitutional deficiencies of the repealed sign ordinance cured by amendment “had nothing whatsoever to do with the rejection of Seay’s permit applications”
• finding no reason to believe old sign code would be reenacted upon city’s counsel’s express statement to that effect at oral argument
• mooting in its entirety case seeking damages where New Sign Ordinance prohibition against billboards was completely severable from other allegedly unconstitutional provisions
• finding case, which raised First Amendment and Equal Protection challenges, to be entirely moot
• “Mootness can occur due to a change in circumstances[ ] or ... a change in the law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).