Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005

Home

220' Page 2 -- July 25, 2005 Signs-- Ordinance contains certain dimension, color, and message requirements Advertising company challenges constitutionality of entire ordinance Citation: Tanner Advertising Group LLC v. Fayette County, JJth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-13210 (2005) The 11th Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. GEORGIA (06/09/05) ~ Tanner Advertising Group LLC erected and operated advertising signs for both noncommercial and commercial purposes. Tanner entered into lease agreements with landowners in Fayette County. Section 1-43 of the county ordinance allowed only one sign per lot; contained height,-area, separation, and setback provisions; required each sign to be brown with white letSers; and disallowed signs directing the public to any place other than where the sign was posted. Tanner submitted eight applications, and all were denied. Tanner sued to challenge the entire ordinance, claiming it was drafted more broadly than necessary in violation of the First Amendment. The court ruled in favor of the county. The court determined Tanner had standing to challenge only Section 1-43 of the ordinance. Tanner appealed, arguing it was entitled to challenge every unconstitutional aspect of the ordinance. DECISION: Reversed. Tanner had standing to challenge the entire ordinance for overbreadth. Although Tanner did not suffer an injury from all provisions of the code, it did suffer an injury from Section 1-43 of the statute. Consequently, it had stand- lng to challenge the statute as a whole. The U.S. Supreme Court created the overbreadth doctrine to protect the rights of others not before the court by allowing third parties to bring a facial' challenge to the entirety of an unconstitutional ordinance. Facial challenges to overly broad statutes were allowed not only for the benefit of the litigant, but also for the benefit of society as a whole. see also: Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 1J3, ]23 S. Ct. 219], 156 L. Ed. 2d 148 (2003). see also: Granite State Outdoor Advertising Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 351 F.3d 1112 (2003). First Amendment-Religious organizations' required to operate under special exception Rabbi argues code requirement was void for vagueness Citation: Konikov v. Orange County, 11~h U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-10481 (2005) The tJth Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. FLORIDA (06/03/05) -- Rabbi Konikov owned land in a district where "reti- © 2005 Quintan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please ca!l (617) 542-(]048.