Legal Opinion
Peterson Outdoor Advertising v. City of Myrtle Beach
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided August 11, 1997No. 24672PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BURNETT, Justice:
City of Myrtle Beach (City) appeals the master-in-equity’s order approving Peterson Outdoor Advertising’s (Respondent’s) proposal for the placement of two billboards. We reverse.
FACTS
The Myrtle Beach Zoning Code, Article VI, §§ 601-607, establishes a Community Appearance Board (CAB) charged with the responsibility of reviewing proposed development in the City, including signage, to discourage unsightly and inharmonious development, to assure structures are properly related to their sites and surrounding sites and structures, and proposed structures do not detract from the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1990
- Talbot v. Myrtle Beach Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1952
- City of Beaufort v. BakerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
- Gurganious v. City of BeaufortCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1995
- Hodge v. POLLOCKSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1953
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Sunrise Corp. of Myrtle Beach v. City of Myrtle BeachCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005
- Restaurant Row Associates v. Horry CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1999
- Kay v. City of Rancho Palos VerdesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Kurschner v. City of Camden Planning CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2008
- Whaley v. Dorchester County Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1999
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.