No. 21-900
City of Cincinnati, Ohio, et al. v. Lamar Advantage GP Company, LLC, et al.
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (3)
Tags: billboard billboard-advertising business-privilege commercial-speech first-amendment freedom-of-press freedom-of-speech municipal-tax state-court-conflict
Key Terms:
Antitrust FirstAmendment
Antitrust FirstAmendment
Latest Conference:
2022-04-29
(distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a municipal excise tax on the business privilege of charging for the use of billboard space abridges the freedom of speech, or of the press
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Relying on the same First Amendment precedent from this Court, the highest courts of Ohio and Maryland reached conflicting conclusions about whether taxing the business privilege of charging for the use of billboard space abridges the freedom of speech, or of the press. The question presented, upon which this conflict exists, is: Whether a municipal excise tax on the business privilege of charging for the use of billboard space abridges the freedom of speech, or of the press.
Docket Entries
2022-05-02
Petition DENIED.
2022-04-26
Supplemental brief of respondents Lamar Advantage GP Company, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2022-04-26
Supplemental brief of petitioners City of Cincinnati, Ohio, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2022-04-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/29/2022.
2022-03-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2022.
2022-03-14
Reply of petitioners City of Cincinnati, Ohio, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2022-02-25
Brief of respondents Lamar Advantage GP Company, LLC and Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc. in opposition filed.
2022-01-26
Response Requested. (Due February 25, 2022)
2022-01-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
2022-01-12
Waiver of right of respondent Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc. to respond filed.
2022-01-12
Waiver of right of respondent Lamar Advantage GP Company, LLC to respond filed.
2021-12-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 18, 2022)
Attorneys
City of Cincinnati, Ohio, et al.
Marion Eugene Haynes III — City of Cincinnati Law Department, Petitioner
Lamar Advantage GP Company, LLC
Richard Guy Taft — Strauss Troy Co LPA, Respondent
Lamar Advantage GP Company, LLC and Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
Michael Alan Galasso — Robbins, Kelly, Patterson & Tucker, LPA, Respondent