Search for: "Gilbert, Town of" Results 21 - 40 of 347
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jan 2015, 1:15 pm by Howard Friedman
Town of Gilbert -- the case on regulation of church directional signs-- is now available. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 5:35 am by Dominic Yobbi
Town of Gilbert, Arizona [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] the court heard arguments on whether the town of Gilbert's content-based ordinance regarding city signs is content-neutral and not discriminatory. [read post]
11 Jan 2015, 6:00 pm
Town of Gilbert — which is being argued Monday — as a “religious rights” case, and unsurprisingly this has gotten picked up. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 6:22 am by laborprof lpb
Cremer then paraded Gilbert through the streets of town before taking... [read post]
30 Apr 2016, 3:28 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Enrique Armijo           Town of Gilbert: Relax Everybody    Presenter: Derek Bambauer Argues that criticism of Reedis overblown/misplaced; argues in favor of the outcome. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 7:41 am by Ruthann Robson
Town of Gilbert, Arizona, regarding a First Amendment challenge to the town's regulation of outdoor signs. [read post]
9 Feb 2013, 5:59 pm by Howard Friedman
Town of Gilbert, (9th Cir., Feb. 8, 2013), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld an Arizona town's sign ordinance that limits the size, number and time frame in which temporary directional signs can be displayed. [read post]
18 Jun 2015, 11:44 am
" Cheryl Wetzstein of The Washington Times has a news update headlined "Arizona church wins outdoor sign case in Supreme Court; Town of Gilbert's signage code deemed unconstitutional. [read post]
21 Nov 2009, 3:10 pm
Town of Gilbert, Arizona, (9th Cir., Nov. 20, 2009), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a town's limitations on temporary directional signs are a content-neutral regulation that does not impermissibly favor commercial speech over noncommercial speech. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 11:29 am by Aurora Barnes
Town of Gilbert and McCullen v. [read post]