City of Whitewater v. Vivid, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, P.J.
This appeal concerns an outdoor billboard owner’s claim for compensation resulting from the landowner-municipality’s decision not to renew the lease. The argument is that pursuant to sec. 84.30(6), Stats., which is part of Wisconsin’s derivative of the Federal Highway Beautification Act, a governmental entity must pay just compensation any time, and by whatever means, it causes an advertising structure to be removed. We hold, however, that because the municipality is the landowner here, it had a landowner’s right not to renew the lease and therefore it does not have to pay compensation.
Vivid…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Markham Advertising Co. v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1968
- Liberty Trucking Co. v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Art Neon Co. v. The City and County of Denver, a Municipal Corporation, and Anthony H. Jansen, Gump Glass Co., Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1974
- Donnelly Advertising Corp. v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
- LAMAR-ORLANDO, ETC. v. City of Ormond BeachDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Vivid, Inc. v. FiedlerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1994
- Vivid, Inc. v. FiedlerCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1993
- City of Fort Collins v. Root Outdoor Advertising, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1990
- City of La Crosse v. The Lamar CompaniesDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2021
- City of La Crosse v. The Lamar CompaniesDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2021