invalidating insurance and indemnification requirements governing newsracks on public streets, because non-newsrack permittees such as bus and telephone companies were not subject to those requirements
How later courts described this case
- invalidating insurance and indemnification requirements governing newsracks on public streets, because non-newsrack permittees such as bus and telephone companies were not subject to those requirements
- recognizing aesthetics as a "substantial" government interest justifying total ban of newsracks in residential areas
- vesting unbridled discretion in municipal official for granting newsrack license is not narrowly tailored and is therefore unconstitutional under First Amendment
- “The Supreme Court has held that invalid portions of a statute should be severed unless it is clear that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are constitutional, independent of those provisions which are not.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNTHANK, District Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the Court with the exception of the holding that the insurance or indemnity requirements of the Lakewood ordinance violate the First Amendment. I consider them legitimate and reasonable provisions for the protection of the City from liability. The fact that the City does not require insurance for public services of a quasi-governmental nature does not prohibit it from requiring insurance for other services.