Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005

Home

Page 2 -- November 10, 2005 Adult Entertainment-- Business planner challenges zoning code Wants to start up exotic club Citarion:"Barry v.,Sumter County, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 1131 (2O05) The 4th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, V~rginia, and West V~rginia. SOUTH cARoLI2NA (09/22/05) -- Barry applied for a license to Operate a busi- ness with exotic entertainers, but when the county attempted to c.ategorize his application as one for an adult*use business, Barry claimed the operations would not involve nudity. Barry then attempted to avoid the adult-use classification by applying for a license to operate a nightclub, but the county rejected the application. Although he continued to argue his business was not an adult use, Barry sued to challenge the local zoning ordinances restricting adult businesses. The court ruled in favor of the county, finding Barry had no standing to challenge the ordinances. Barry appealed. DEOSION:Affirmed. Barry did not have standing to bring his lawsuit. To satisfy the Constitution's case or controversy requirement, a litigant in federal court was required to estabhsh his own injury in fact, a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct, and the likel/hood ofredressabitity. Here, Barry had the ability to challenge the zoning ordinances governing adult entertainment establishments even though he did not apply for. an adult- use license. However, to satisfy the case or.controversy requ/rement, Barry s'ti/1 had to show that he suffered an injury in fact. As Barry apparently did not intend to operate an adult-use business, he did not show any injury in fact from the adult-use provisions he sought to challenge. see also: Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F. 3d 885 (1997). see also: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 1]2 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed.2d (1952). Signs- Company claims sign ordinance biased City amends it to remove challeaged provisions Citation: Covenant Media of Illinois LLC v. City of Des ?laines, U.'$. District · Court for the Northern District of Illinois, EaStern Division, No. 04 C 8130 (2005) [LLI/XrOIS (09/15/05) --Covenant Media of Illinois LLC engaged, in the busi- ness of posting and operating signs and billboards. The city of Des Plaines had a sign ordinance regulating allowable signs that Covenant believed was un- fairly biased against certain kinds of speech. Covenant sued, arguing the sign ordinance illegally favored commercial 60 © 2005 Ouinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited, For more information please call (617) 542-0048.