Valley Outdoor, Inc. v. County of Riverside

Good Law
337 F.3d 1111·2003 WL 21757155
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 31, 2003No. 02-55475California1,732 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fletcher, J.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Valley Outdoor (“Valley”) and Regency Outdoor Advertising (“Regency”), two billboard companies, challenge the constitutionality of two different versions of Defendanh-Appellee Riverside'County’s sign ordinance, claiming that both versions violate the First Amendment. They maintain that both versions of the ordinance impose impermissible restrictions on speech, favor commercial over noncommercial speech, and confer unbridled discretion on County officials to grant or deny sign permits. They also maintain that the “grandfather” provision contained in the new version of the sign ordinance is specifically targeted at their billboards and constitutes an attempt by the County to single them out for retribution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The four billboards at issue are located on three parcels of land adjoining State Highway 91 in Riverside County. Valley and Regency are in the business of leasing outdoor advertising space to the public on an “all comers” basis, for both commercial and noncommercial purposes. They have property interests in all four billboards, and they maintain a leasehold for two additional…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.