Legal Opinion
Dimas v. City of Warren
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided August 15, 1996No. Civil Action 95-73396PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The Court, having heard oral arguments and considered the memoranda submitted by the parties, finds that the City of Warren’s ordinance regulating political election signs violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
In 1991, the City of Warren enacted a “Political Signs” ordinance which prohibited property…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Parratt v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,768 Phil A. Street and Clyde H. Street v. J.C. Bradford & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San DiegoSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- City of Painesville Building Department v. Dworken & Bernstein Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
- Curry v. Prince George's County, Md.District Court, D. Maryland · 1999
- Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City of Lenexa, Kan.District Court, D. Kansas · 1999
- Painesville Bldg. Dept. v. Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
- Bell v. Baltimore County, MDDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2008
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.