Legal Opinion
Carlin v. City of Palm Springs
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 26, 1971No. Civ. 9833PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KERRIGAN, J.
Plaintiffs have owned and operated a small hotel in Palm Springs for many years. They have done business under the fictitious name of “650 Hotel” 1 since 1956. In 1967 the City Council of Palm Springs adopted a comprehensive sign ordinance. One of the provisions of the ordinance prohibits, in effect, the use of an outside business sign that makes reference to prices or rates. Under the ordinance “rate signs” are deemed to be public nuisances per se.
Several years prior to the enactment of the ordinance, the plaintiffs attached to the main entrance of their hotel, fronting on…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- McCarthy v. City of Manhattan BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Varney & Green v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- United Business Commission v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Rodriguez v. SolisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. ADCO AdvertisersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Kuhns v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Gawzner Corp. v. MinierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.