Legal Opinion

City of Painesville Building Department v. Dworken & Bernstein Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 6, 2000No. 99-1769PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

We have examined the law relevant to the issue of the constitutionality of Section 1135.02(d). We conclude that a narrowly drawn municipal ordinance imposing reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the display of temporary signs, including political yard signs posted on private property, could constitutionally be enacted. Section 1135.02(d), however, is not such an ordinance, and is unconstitutional when applied to prohibit the owner of private property from posting a single political sign on that property outside the durational period set by the ordinance.

The First Amendment to…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Ward v. Rock Against RacismSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. ButtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for VincentSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Craig v. BorenSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. State v. ThompsonOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State v. ThompsonOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State v. CornwellOhio Court of Appeals · 2002
  4. State v. WoodbridgeOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
  5. State v. CooperOhio Court of Appeals · 2003

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API