The U.S. Supreme Court has dropped its consideration of a case that many people hoped would resolve conflicts over processing of adult business permit applications. The court dismissed a case from Wisconsin because the adult business had withdrawn its application, so "the case no longer qualifies for judicial review," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for a unanimous court.
The court had accepted the case because lower courts differ on the meaning of "prompt judicial review." The court in FW/PBS v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990), ruled that unsuccessful applicants for adult business licenses must be accorded "an avenue for prompt judicial review." The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes California, has since ruled that unsuccessful applications must be assured of a prompt judicial determination on the merits. (Baby Tam & Co. v. Las Vegas, 154 F3d 1097 (CA9 1998; see CP&DR Legal Digest, March 2000, August 1999.) Other courts have given FW/PBS a less-strict reading. The Court of Appeals in Wisconsin, which handled the instant case, held that prompt access to judicial review is sufficient.
In 1995, the City of Waukesha, Wisconsin, rejected the annual license renewal application of City News and Novelty, Inc. because, the city contended, the adult business had violated the city's ordinance by allowing minors onto the premises and allowing patrons to have sex in video viewing booths. The business lost legal challenges in Wisconsin state courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard oral arguments. But not only did the actual controversy end when the business withdrew application, but the question the court hoped to reach was not reflected in the case. City News had been allowed to continue business during legal proceedings and was only acting to fend off a stop order. The lower court conflict has to do with license applicants whose expression cannot begin without government approval, Ginsburg wrote.
"We venture no view on the merits of an argument urging preservation of speech (or expressive conduct) as the status quo pending administrative and judicial review," Ginsburg wrote. "It suffices to point out that the question is not the one on which the courts have divided."
The case is City News and Novelty, Inc., v. City of Waukesha, No. 99-1680, 01 C.D.O.S. 465, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 545.
A San Diego County Superior Court jury has awarded a developer $94.5 million in damages in an inverse condemnation lawsuit.
The developer of a struggling business park near the Mexican border filed the lawsuit after arguing with the city since the early 1990s. Roque de la Fuente II contended in court that the city breached a 1986 development agreement, dooming development of his 312-acre business park. De la Fuente contended the city made permits difficult to obtain by increasing fees and conditions...
A Hollywood property owners association that governs a business improvement district must abide by local government open meeting laws, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The unanimous three-judge panel held that the City of Los Angeles "created" the Hollywood Entertainment District Property Owners Association (POA) to assume the city's legislative functions regarding the Hollywood Entertainment District II Business Improvement District. The court rejected the argument that the POA, which i...
A state appellate court has rejected the argument of a landowner who claimed that the City of Fort Bragg was liable for losses suffered when the city approved an adjacent building.
In 1997, the city granted a building permit to David Codling for construction of a two-story building on a vacant lot next to the Barracks Mall, a two-story structure with businesses on the ground floor and apartments above. The Barracks Mall had been built to the lot line, and the city allowed Codling to do the same — putt...
Taxpayer organizations recently lost two lawsuits against the City of Los Angeles alleging violations of Proposition 218. In its first interpretation of the initiative, the California Supreme Court held that the city's apartment inspection fee was not subject to the voter approval provisions of Proposition 218. In the other case, an appellate court ruled that the city's water service fees and the transfer of money from the water fund to other funds were not subject to Proposition 218.
In the apartment...
A divided U.S. Supreme Court has limited the scope of the Clean Water Act by removing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction over isolated waters and seasonal wetlands, such as vernal pools and ephemeral washes. Farmers, developers and property rights advocates hailed the ruling as an important limitation on intrusive federal regulation. Environmentalists decried the ruling as a step backward, although many observers said the decision's impact would not be as great in California because of extensive...
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
A developer is not entitled to reimbursement or damages from a consultant hired by a local government to complete an environmental impact report, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Even when the consultant fails to complete an EIR in a timely manner, the consultant owes no contractual duty to the developer that paid for the consultant, the court concluded.
