Legal Opinion
Suffolk Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Town of Southampton
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 20, 1983PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Meyer, J.
Notwithstanding the amendments of the Federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (US Code, tit 23, § 131) made by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub L 95-599, § 122 [a], [b]), compensation need not be paid by a municipality which requires removal of outdoor advertising signs, provided a reasonable amortization period is allowed by the removal ordinance. As applied to petitioners the amortization provision of Building Zone Ordinance No. 26 of the Town of Southampton is not unreasonable. The order of the Appellate Division should, therefore, be…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San DiegoSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Suffolk Outdoor Advertising Co. v. HulseNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Modjeska Sign Studios, Inc. v. BerleNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Suffolk Outdoor Advertising Co. v. HulseSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- South Dakota v. AdamsDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Town of Islip v. CavigliaNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Town of Islip v. CavigliaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Town of Islip v. ZalakAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Health Care Plan, Inc. v. BahouNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- King Service, Inc. v. Town BoardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.