United States Ninth Circuit

Summary judgment for defendants is affirmed, where: 1) the law of the case applies which established that defendant's sign ordinance was constitutional because the different treatment of types of noncommercial temporary signs was not content-based and the restrictions were tailored to serve significant governmental interests; 2) the ordinance did not violate plaintiff's right to the free exercise of religion or right to equal protection of law, and was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; and 3) amendments to the sign ordinance made by defendant during the pendency of the appeal did not moot the case and plaintiff could file a new action in the district court should it wish to challenge the new provisions of the sign ordinance.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/08/2013
• Published 02/08/2013

Judges

• CALLAHAN

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel