ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Justia Dockets & Filings Third Circuit Pennsylvania Eastern District ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Plaintiff:	ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Defendant:	PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Case Number:	5:2017cv01253
Filed:	March 20, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Office:	Allentown Office
County:	Lehigh
Presiding Judge:	JOSEPH F. LEESON
Nature of Suit:	Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1331
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
June 5, 2018	Filing 45 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, ECF NO. 27 , IS DENIED. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 30 , IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AND JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN PLAINTIFFS FA VOR AS TO ITS CLAIM THAT THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR NOT INCLUDING TIME LIMITS TO ACT ON PERMIT APPLICATIONS (FACIAL CHALLENGE). THE PERMIT REQUIREMENT IN 36 P.S. § 2718.107 IS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. B. THE SECRETARY OF PENNDOT IS PERMAN ENTLY ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING THE PERMIT REQUIREMENT IN 36 P.S. § 2718.107 UNTIL SUCH TIME AS PENNDOT PROVIDES FOR INTERNAL TIME LIMITS ON PERMITTING DECISIONS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION. C. THE MOTION IS DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECT S. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 31 , IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AND JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AS TO PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT THE INTERCHANGE PROHIBITION IN 36 P.S. § 2718.105(C)(2)(I) VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT. B. PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT THE EXEMPTIONS IN 36 P.S. § 2718.104 AND 36 P.S. § 2718.105(C)(2)(IV) ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS DENIED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING TO RAISE THIS CLAIM. C. P LAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE OF THE ONE-YEAR DELAY BEFORE ITS APPLICATION WAS DECIDED (AS-APPLIED CHALLENGE) IS DENIED AS MOOT. D. THE MOTION IS DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. THE CASE IS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 6/5/18. 6/5/18 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (mas, )

Date Filed

Document Text

June 5, 2018

Filing 45 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, ECF NO. 27 , IS DENIED. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 30 , IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AND JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN PLAINTIFFS FA VOR AS TO ITS CLAIM THAT THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR NOT INCLUDING TIME LIMITS TO ACT ON PERMIT APPLICATIONS (FACIAL CHALLENGE). THE PERMIT REQUIREMENT IN 36 P.S. § 2718.107 IS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. B. THE SECRETARY OF PENNDOT IS PERMAN ENTLY ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING THE PERMIT REQUIREMENT IN 36 P.S. § 2718.107 UNTIL SUCH TIME AS PENNDOT PROVIDES FOR INTERNAL TIME LIMITS ON PERMITTING DECISIONS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION. C. THE MOTION IS DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECT S. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 31 , IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AND JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AS TO PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT THE INTERCHANGE PROHIBITION IN 36 P.S. § 2718.105(C)(2)(I) VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT. B. PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT THE EXEMPTIONS IN 36 P.S. § 2718.104 AND 36 P.S. § 2718.105(C)(2)(IV) ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS DENIED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING TO RAISE THIS CLAIM. C. P LAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE OF THE ONE-YEAR DELAY BEFORE ITS APPLICATION WAS DECIDED (AS-APPLIED CHALLENGE) IS DENIED AS MOOT. D. THE MOTION IS DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. THE CASE IS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 6/5/18. 6/5/18 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (mas, )

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Represented By:	VICTOR F. CAVACINI
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?