# Petition — Leipzig v. Baldwin > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_0731%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1977 - **Citation:** 431 U.S. 913 ## Text @6°507" Sirens Cnt 8 vr OocT 12 Sie Iu the Supreme Court - OF THE a United States OcTOBER TERM, 1976 No. MARGUERITE LEtpzic, Mayor oF THE City oF REDWooD City, CALIFoRNIA, and CHARLES GYSELBRECHT, BUILDING OFFICTAL OF THE City oF REDWoop City, CALIFORNTA, Petitioners, VS. ALAN L. BaLpWwIN and Grorce Q. CANNON, JR.. Respondents. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Davin E. ScHRICKER, City Attorney Suite 510 702 Marshal! Street, Suite 510 Redwood City, California 94063 Telephone: (415) 369-6251, Attorney for Petitioners. PERNAU - WALSH PRINTING CO. - 562 MISSION STREET - SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 Subject Index Page hk i te oe ie dee oe ee ee 2 Ci ad bees ch eseunetateescidndessaséeocees 2 i a ee canes sceduebeces 2 Constitutional, Statutory and Ordinance Provisions involved 3 ll EEA Pe ee a 4 Reasons for gramting the Writ .......cccccccccccccccccces 8 00h dite ee ced ehees ol ehenéearesvessesceenes 13 Table of Authorities Cited Cases Pages Adderly v. Florida [1966], 385 U.S. 39 .................. 9 Cameron v. Johnson [1968], 390 U.S. 611 ............... 8 Cantwell v. Connecticut [1940], 310 U.S. 296 ............ 8 Cohen v. Calif. [1971], 403 U.S. 15 ................205. 12 Cox v. Louisiana [1965], 379 U.S. 536 .................. 8,9 Cox v. New Hampshire [1941], 312 U.S. 569 ............ 9 Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville [1975], 422 U.S. 205 ... 9,12 Farrell v. Township of Teaneck [1974], 126 N.J. Super. Sk Se A ED Vic ddcencusdeecccadesenstcscieses Redwood City, et al., Defendants. ; ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC RE “JUDGMENT” To eliminate any possible ambiguity, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment entered in this case on January 17, 1975 is amended, nunc pro tunc, as follows: 1. The title of the document is amended to read “PARTIAL JUDGMENT.” 2. Page one, line 24 of the document is amended by adding after the words “Paragraph 2” the words “and is DENIED in all other respects.” Dated: February 14, 1975. /s/ Stanley A. Weigel Judge Appendix F In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California No. C-74-0610 SAW Alan L. Baldwin and 7 Geo: . Cannon, Jr., attina Plaintiffs, vB. > Redwood City, et al., Defendants. : [Jan. 16, 1975] PERMANENT INJUNCTION * This matter having come on regularly for hearing November 21, 1974, on the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment and on plaintiffs’ motion for permanent injunction, and the Court being advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants, their agents, representatives and employees, and all per- sons acting in concert with them, should be and hereby are permanently enjoined from applying or enforc- ing, directly or indirectly, the following sections of the City of Redwood City Municipal Code, insofar 41 as said sections purport to regulate political cam- paign signs and posters: (a) The seconé sentence of Section 3.136 ef the Redwood City Code, insofar as it relates to the requirement for a non-refundable inspec- tion fee of one dollar for each sign; (b) Section 3.137(b) ; (ec) Section 3.139. Dated: Jan. 16, 1975 /s/ Stanley A. Weigel United States District Judge 42 Appendix G In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California No. C-74-0610 SAW Alan L, Baldwin and | George Q. Cannon, Jr., Plaintiffs, VS. 4 Redwood City, et al., Defendants. J [Jan. 16, 1975] JUDGMENT Cross-motions for summary judgment having been duly brought on to be heard and the Court having made orders thereto and directing that judgment be entered herein, and the Court having filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED (1) That plaintiffs’ motion for summary judg- ment is GRANTED in the respects set forth in Para- graph 2. (2) That defendants, their agents, representatives and employees and all persons acting in concert with 43 them, are permanently enjoined from applying or en- forcing, directly or indirectly, the following sections of the City of Redwood City, Municipal Code, insofar as said sections purport to regulate political campaign signs and posters: (a) The second sentence of Section 3.186 of the Redwood City Code, insofar as it relates to the re quirement for a non-refundable inspection fee of one dollar for each sign; (b) Section 3.137(b) ; . (ec) Section 3.139. (3) Defendant City of REDWOOD CITY is not a “person” within the meaning of Title 42 U.S.C. §1983; accordingly, the claim against said defendant is DISMISSED. (4) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on grounds of mootness is DENIED. (5) Defendant KECKLEY’S motion for sum- mary judgment is DENIED. Dated: Jan. 16, 1975 /s/ Stanley A. Weigel United States District Judge: 44 Appendix Hi United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No. 74-1556 Alan L, Baldwin and } and George Q. Cannon, Jr., Plaintiffs-A ppellees, Vs. Redwood City, Paul C. Keckley, Mayor, and Charles Gyselbrecht, Building Official, Defendants-A ppellants. j [Sep. 11, 1975] ORDER Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Before: BrowninG and Cuoy, Circuit Judges and Sxopi.,* District Judge On stipulation of counsel that the appeal is moot, it is ordered that the appeal be and it hereby is dis- missed. *Honorable Otto R. Skopil, Jr., United States District Judge, District of Cregon, sitting by designation. 45 Appendix | In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California No. C-74-0610 SAW Alan L. Baldwin and ) Geo: . Cannon, Jr., -s Plaintiffs, vs. -_" Redwood City, et al., Defendants. j [Mar. 28, 1974] PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION This matter came on regularly for hearing March 28, 1974 on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunc- tion, Wayne Canterbury of Davis, Cowell and Bowe appeared for plaintiffs and Clark G. Maloney, As- sistant City Attorney for Redwood City, appeared for defendants. All Counsel having waived in open court, findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court having read the motion and First Amended Complaint and the parties’ respective memoranda and affidavits, and good cause appearing, it is 46 ORDERED that defendants, their agents, repre- sentatives and employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, are preliminarily enjoined from applying or enforcing Sections 3.136, 3.137, 3.139, 3.80 through 3.84(f) and the last sentence of 3.89 of the Redwood City Code insofar as said sections relate to political campaign signs. Dated: 3/28/74 /s/ Stanley A. Weigel United States District Judge Approved as to form. Clark G. Maloney 47 Appendix J In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California No. C-74-0610 SAW Alan L, Baldwin and ] George Q. Cannon, Jr., Plaintiffs, v8. ‘ Redwood City, et al., Defendants. ; [Mar. 20, 1974] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE This cause came on to be heard on plaintiffs’ veri- fied complaint, the affidavits submitted therewith and the certificate of Wayne S. Canterbury, attorney for plaintiffs, and it appearing to the court that defend- ants are committing acts as set forth in plaintiffs’ complaint, and will continue to do so unless restrained by Order of this Court, and that immediate and ir- reparable injury, loss or damage will result to plain- tiffs if this order does not issue, and that defendants were given notice and an opportunity to be heard in opposition to the granting of a Temporary Restrain- ing Order, it is 48 ORDERED, that defendants, their agents, repre- sentatives and employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, are temporariy restrained until the further order of the Court in this matter on March 28, 1974 from applying or enforcing Sections 3.121, 3.137, 3.139 and 3.89 of the Redwood City Code insofar as they relate to political campaign signs. ORDERED, that plaintiffs’ motion for a prelimi- nary injunction be set down for hearing on the 28th day of March, 1974, at 2:15 p.m., in Courtroom No. 8, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California; and it is further ORDERED, that defendants shall file all papers in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary in- junction not later than 11:00 a.m., March 26, 1974. ORDERED, that copies of this Order and of plain- tiffs’ complaint and affidavits submitted therewith, together with proper summons issued by the Clerk of this Court, be immediately served by the United States Marshal upon the defendants. Dated: March 20, 1974. /s/ Stanley A. Weigel United States District Judge 49 Appendix K REDWOOD CITY CODE Chapter 3 Article II : Division 6. TEMPORARY SIGNS Sec. 3.133. Erection regulated. Temporary signs may be erected in addition to all other signs permitted by this article without comply- ing with the provisions of subdivision II of division 3 of this article if they comply with the provisions of this division. (Ord. No. 1983, art. 8, § 8.1) Sec. 3.134. Uses. Temporary signs shall be used solely for the pur- pose of advertising an event occurring on a specific date, such as elections, theatrical and circus perform- ances and special sales by retail stores. (Ord. No. 1083, art. 8, § 8.2) Sec, 3.135. Maximum length of time to be maintained. Temporary signs shall not be maintained for a pe- riod in excess of sixty days, and in no event shall such signs be maintained more than ten days after the hap- pening of the event advertised thereon. (Ord. No. 1083, art. 8, § 8.3) 50 Sec. 3.136, Permit required to erect; application; in- spection fee; cash deposit or bond. No person shall erect or maintain any temporary sign until a permit therefor has been secured from the building inspector. Applications for a temporary sign permit shall be made on forms provided by the building inspector and shall be accompanied by a non- refundable inspection fee of one dollar for each sign. Every application for a temporary sign shall be accompanied by a cash deposit of five dollars for each temporary sign proposed to be erected to assure re- moval of such signs in accordance with the provisions of section 3.135. On the failure to remove the signs as required by section 3.135, the deposit shall be for- feited to the city; otherwise, the building inspector shall cause the deposit to be refunded. In lieu of a cash deposit, the building inspector may accept a bond executed by a corporate surety authorized to do busi- ness in the state and conditioned upon removal of the temporary signs in compliance with the provisions of section 3.185. (Ord. No. 1083, art. 8, § 8.4) Sec. 3.137. Maximum area. (a) No temporary sign shall exceed sixteen square feet in area. The aggregate area of all temporary signs placed or maintained on any parcel of real property in one ownership shall not exceed eighty square feet. (b) The aggregate area of all temporary signs placed or maintained within the city advertising a single event or, in the event of an election, for any 51 candidate or ballot issue, shall not exceed sixty-four square feet. (Ord. No. 1083, art. 8, § 8.5; Ord. No. 1304, § 18) Sec. 3.138. Placement on public property. No temporary sign shall be permitted on or to ex- tend over any public property; provided, however, that the building inspector may issue a permit for the erection or maintenance of banners, flags, bunting and similar devices over any public right of way if he finds that such device is to be maintained in connec- tion with an event of a general civil and publie nature conducted within the city. The building inspector may establish conditions on such permit as may be neces- sary to assure compliance with the purposes of this article. (Ord. No. 1083, art. 8, 4 8.6) Sec. 3.139. Prohibited in residentially zoned districts. No temporary sign shall be placed or maintained in the zoning districts mentioned in section 3.121. (Ord. No. 1083, art. 8, § 8.7) Sec. 3.89 All signs, including signs installed prior to the adop- tion of this article, shall be constantly maintained in a state of security, safety and good repair. If the building inspector finds that any sign is unsafe or insecure, is a menace to the public safety or has been constructed, erected, relocated or altered after the effective date of this article in violation of the provi- sions hereof, he shall give written notice to the owner 52 or the tenant of the property wherein it is located to remove or alter such sign. If the owner or tenant fails to comply with the provisions of this article within ten days after such notice, the building in- spector may cause such sign to be removed, and the cost thereof shall be paid by the owner or tenant. The building inspector may cause any sign which is an immediate peril to persons or property to be removed summarily and without notice. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the building inspec- tor may remove any sign erected, placed or main- tained in violation of this article if the owner of the property on which the sign is erected fails to remove such sign after 24 hours written notice to do so. In addition, the building inspector may summarily, with- out notice, remove any temporary sign which is erected, placed or maintained in violation of this article in any zoning district. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_0731%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.