# Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego

> California Supreme Court · April 14, 1980 · 26 Cal. 3d 848

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9564264

## Case

- **Full name:** METROMEDIA, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant and Appellant; PACIFIC OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO Et Al., Defendants and Appellants
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 14, 1980
- **Citations:** 26 Cal. 3d 848; 164 Cal. Rptr. 510; 610 P.2d 407; 10 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20862; 14 ERC (BNA) 1865; 1980 Cal. LEXIS 160
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Richardson
- **Judges:** Tobriner, Richardson, Clark
- **Cited by:** 95 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9564264

## Opinion text

RICHARDSON, J.
I concur in the judgment. I share some of the substantial doubts raised by the dissent of Justice Clark, who discerns serious constitutional difficulties with any governmental scheme calling for the total prohibition of any legitimate business enterprise. Nonetheless, I am persuaded by the majority’s analysis that the present ban on off-site billboards meets the minimum constitutional standards established by the United States Supreme Court and that, accordingly, the challenged ordinance must be upheld.
The high court has recently dismissed for want of a substantial federal question an appeal which raised identical issues. In Suffolk Outdoor Adv. v. Hulse (1977) 43 N.Y,2d 483 [ 402 N.Y.S.2d 368 , 373 N.E.2d 263 ], the New York Court of Appeals upheld a local ordinance totally banning all off-site billboards as a rational method of improving community aesthetics. The majority herein correctly observes that the subsequent dismissal of the appeal to the United States Supreme Court must be regarded as a dispositive decision on the merits. (Hicks v. Miranda (1975) 422 U.S. 332, 343-344 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 223, 235-236 , 95 S.Ct. 2281 ].) No convincing basis appears for distinguishing Suffolk. Accordingly, I agree with the judgment of reversal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9564264. Public record. Not legal advice.