Morris Communications Corp. v. City of Bessemer City Zoning Board of Adjustment
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Martin, Jackson
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Appellate court reversed the Board of Adjustment's decision, finding that the BOA erred in prohibiting plaintiff from relocating a sign for a state highway project based on an overly narrow interpretation of 'work' under the sign permit ordinance.
Excerpt
<bold>1. Appeal and Error — standard of review —</bold><bold>administrative decision — de novo</bold> A <italic>de novo</italic> standard of review applied to plaintiffs argument on appeal that defendant Board of Adjustment's (BOA) interpretation of the term "work" as used in a sign permit issued to plaintiff constituted an error of law. The BOA's interpretation was not entitled to deference. <bold>2. Zoning — sign permit — interpretation of</bold><bold>ordinance — unduly restrictive</bold> The Board of Adjustment (BOA) erred in prohibiting plaintiff from relocating a sign as necessary to accommodate a state highway project based on the BOA's determination that a sign permit issued to plaintiff had expired. The BOA's interpretation of the term "work" as used in the sign permit to mean only visible activities related to construction was too narrow and unduly restrictive. Zoning ordinances are strictly construed in favor of the free use of real property and plaintiffs actions were sufficient to constitute "work."
Similar Rulings
<p>APPEAL from tbe District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Carl A. Davis, Judge.</p> <p>Petition for writ of mandate to compel the board of county commissioners and county assessor of Ada county to assess all motor vehicles that escaped taxation for the year 1913, under the highway commission act. Demurrer to petition sustained by lower court.</p> <p>This purported amendment relating to property exempt from taxation does not comply with the constitution, see. 18, art. 3.</p> <p>The legislature, by the title of the highway commission act, declared that they intended to amend see. 1644, Kev. Codes.</p> <p>“The declared purpose of a statute must be accepted as true, .unless sueh purpose be incompatible with its meaning and effect.” (S. S. White Dental Mfg. Co. v. Commonwealth, 212 Mass. 35, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 805, 98 N. E. 1056; Lewis’ Sutherland Stat. Const., 2d ed., sees. 230, 231; Fletcher v. Prather, 102 Cal. 413, 36 Pac. 658; People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481; Copland v. Pirie, 26 Wash. 481, 90 Am. St. 769, 67 Pac. 227.)</p> <p>“If all parts of the act have a natural connection and reasonably relate, directly or indirectly, to one general, legitimate subject of legislation, the act is not open to the objection of plurality of subjects.” (State v. Doherty, 3 Ida. 384, 29 Pac. 855; State v. Dolan, 13 Ida. 693, 92 Pae. 995, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 1259; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 8 Ida. 310, 101 Am. St. 201, 68 Pac. 295; State v. Jones, 9 Ida. 693, 75 Pac. 819; Turner v. Coffin, 9 Ida. 338, 74 Pac. 962; Butler v. Lewiston, 11 Ida. 393, 83 Pac. 234; Kessler v. Fritchman, 21 Ida. 30, 119 Pac. 692; Shoshone Highway Dist. v. Anderson, 22 Ida. 109, 125 Pac. 219; In re Magues’ Estate, 32 Colo. 527, 77 Pac. 853.)</p> <p>An act is not unconstitutional if the title is broader than the act. (Divet v. Richland Co., 8 N, D. 65, 76 N. W. 993.) Similar titles in the f ollowing cases w§rg hsld to be sufficient: State v. Klectzen, 8 N. I), £36, 78 N. W. 984; M
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.