Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. v. City of Los Angeles’s Empirical Analysis
340 F.3d 810 · 2003
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 14 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell (2011), The Lands Council v. McNair (2008)
49 federal appellate · 14 district · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York · Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego · City of Chicago v. Morales · Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International Inc. · Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“either: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in [their] favor.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he standard for granting a preliminary injunction balances the plaintiff's likelihood of success against the relative hardship to the parties.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[WJhether onsite advertising is permitted or not, the prohibition of offsite advertising is directly related to the stated objectives of traffic safety and esthetics. This is not altered by the fact that the ordinance is underinclusive because it permits onsite advertising .... [T]he city may believe that offsite advertising, with its periodically changing content, presents a more acute problem than does onsite advertising. San Diego has obviously chosen to value one kind of commercial speech — onsite advertising — more than another kind of commercial speech — offsite advertising. The ordinance reflects a decision by the city that the former interest, but not the latter, is stronger than the city’s interests in traffic safety and esthetics .... As we see it, the city could reasonably conclude that a commercial enterprise— as well as the interested public — has a stronger interest in identifying its place of business and advertising the products or services available there than it has in using or leasing its available space for the purpose of advertising commercial enterprises located elsewhere.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.