United States Ninth Circuit

Summary judgment is proper because there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding plaintiff's claims that defendant's ordinances were unconstitutional, and whether an amoritization period was required.

Appellate Information

• Argued 01/07/2004
• Decided 05/27/2004
• Published 05/27/2004

Judges

• TALLMAN, Circuit Judge., Before GRABER, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Gilbert H. Levy, Seattle, WA, on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Stephen A. Smith, Todd L. Nunn, Preston Gates & Ellis, LLP, Seattle, WA, on behalf of the defendant-appellee.