Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Neighborhood Enterprises, Inc. v. City of St. Louis

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

October 31, 2014

NEIGHBORHOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,
v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., Respondents, Petitioners,

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on remand on Petitioners' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, [Doc. 100]. The City has indicated to the Court that it stands on previously filed memoranda. In its Opinion, Memorandum and Order Dated April 24, 2014, the Court determined that Respondents' repeal of Sections 26.68.030 and 26.68.050 and the amended 26.68.020, resolved the issues of whether the unconstitutional provisions' severability. Based on Petitioners' memorandum and supporting authority, the Court concludes that its conclusions were premature with regard to the revised code and therefore, Petitioner's motion is granted. The Opinion, Memorandum and Order dated April 24, 2014 is vacated and held for naught. The Judgment entered herein is accordingly vacated.

In its Opinion of July 31, 2011, the Eighth Circuit concluded that Respondent City of St. Louis' Zoning Code Sign Regulations Sections 26.68.020(17), 26.68.030 and 26.68.050 violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.[1] The Court remanded the matter for a determination by this Court of whether the unconstitutional provisions are severable from the remainder of Chapter 26.68 of the zoning code.

Respondent argues that the Eighth Circuit did not address the constitutionality of the size and location aspect of the regulations regarding signs, and therefore, this Court can still affirm the City's refusal to issue a permit to Petitioners. As Petitioners correctly point out, the Appellate Court did, however, strike down the definition of "sign" itself, ergo, the size and location regulation can no longer be applied.

The relevant code provisions provide as follow:

Section 26.68.010 of the zoning code provides:

These regulations shall govern and control the erection, remodeling, enlarging, moving, operation and maintenance of all signs by conforming uses within all zoning districts. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed a waiver of the provisions of any other ordinance or regulation applicable to signs. Signs located in areas governed by several ordinances and/or applicable regulations shall comply with all such ordinances and regulations.

Section 26.68.020(17) provides: For the purpose of this chapter the following terms, phrasing, words and their deviations shall have the meaning given herein:

* * *

17. Sign. "Sign" means any object or device or part thereof situated outdoors which is used to advertise, identify, display, direct or attract attention to an object, person, institution, organization, business product, service, event, or location by any means including words, letters, figures, designs, symbols, fixtures, colors, motion illumination or projected images. Signs do not include the following:

a. Flags of nations, states and cities, fraternal, religious and civic organization;

b. Merchandise, pictures of models of products or services incorporated in a window display;

c. Time and temperature devices;

d. National, state, religious, fraternal, professional and civic symbols or crests, or on site ground based measure display device used to show time ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.