United States Seventh Circuit

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against the City of Chicago over the removal of an advertising sign, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) as plaintiff's predecessor failed to obtain certain requisite permits in the 1960s and 70s, the sign was not a legal land use that gave rise to a protected property interest; 2) absent such a vested property right, a substantive due process challenge to zoning ordinance amendments failed; 3) plaintiff failed to show how the First Amendment was implicated by the content-neutral provisions of a grandfather provision; and 4) a procedural due process claim was waived.

Appellate Information

• Argued 06/04/2007
• Decided 05/16/2008
• Published 05/16/2008

Judges

• ROVNER, Circuit Judge., Before RIPPLE, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Seventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Thomas E. Baltz (argued), Grey, Grey & Baltz, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Kerrie Maloney Laytin (argued), Mara S. Georges, Office of the Corporation, Counsel Appeals Division, Chicago, IL, Defendant-Appellee.