Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Blockbuster Videos, Inc. v. City of Tempe

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided April 15, 1998No. 97-15535Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBrowning, Circuit Judge

I concur in the majority’s opinion insofar as it affirms Tempe’s authority to condition the approval of a permit to display exterior signage in the Albertsons Plaza Shopping Center on conformance with that shopping center’s sign package, which stipulates that exterior signs in the shopping center will be flat. I dissent, however, from the majority’s holding that Tempe cannot condition the display of exterior signage at the Valley Fair Shopping Center on conformity with the requirement that such signage. employ white letters against a turquoise background and I disagree with the underlying…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for VincentSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San DiegoSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Berman v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  4. City of Ladue v. GilleoSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Payless Shoesource, Inc. v. Town of Penfield, NYDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API