Vanguard Outdoor, LLC v. City of Los Angeles

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting plaintiffs argument that “the California Constitution’s free speech clause does not tolerate a distinction between non-commercial and commercial speech that would allow the City to prohibit Plaintiffs signs”
• “Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this handful of exceptions breaks the link between the offsite Sign Ban and the City’s objectives in traffic safety and aesthetics.”
• “[A] Central Hudson challenge is not focused on the particular plaintiff; instead, the Court must look at the ‘whether the City’s ban [advances] its interests in its general application, not specifically with respect to’ a particular speaker.”
• adopting district court opinion as its own

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).