XXL of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Broadview Heights

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that if an applicant seeks an injunction to prevent enforcement of the sign ordinance, the burden of proof is on the party seeking the injunction
• rejecting billboard company’s vagueness challenge to “stated objectives of the sign ordinance and the determinations in support of the ordinance” because they “mandate or prohibit nothing”
• “No court has found [protection of property values] to be a compelling governmental interest sufficient to withstand strict scrutiny.”
• Central Hudson does not apply if ordinance restricts both commercial and non-commercial signs and, instead, “more stringent ‘time, place, and manner’ test ... is used”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).