Legal Opinion

Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Durham

District Court, M.D. North Carolina

Decided August 24, 1992No. C-85-722-DPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BULLOCK, District Judge.

This case is again before the court to undertake the “difficult” 1 task of determining whether the Defendant City of Durham’s (“City”) 1984 ordinance prohibiting all commercial, off-premises advertising signs except those along interstate or federally aided primary highways after a 5V2-year grace period violates the Fifth Amendment’s proscription, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, against taking property without just compensation. In its initial decision in this case, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  5. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Capital Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1994
  2. Adams Outdoor Advertising v. City of East LansingMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Adams Outdoor Advertising v. City of East LansingMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Town of LillingtonDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API