Regency Outdoor Advertising v. City of Los Angeles
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 10/11/06 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, ) INC., ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ) ) Defendant and Respondent. ) ___________________________________ ) S132619 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YC037625 MODIFICATION OF OPINION BY THE COURT: The opinion herein, filed on August 7, 2006, which appears at 39 Cal.4th 507, is modified in the following respects: 1. At page 518, first full paragraph, after the first sentence: Delete the string of case citations. Insert in their place: (See, e.g., First Nat. Bank v. Tyson (1902) 133 Ala. 459 [32 So. 144, 150]; Perry v. Castner (1904) 124 Iowa 386 [100 N.W. 84, 87]; Bischof v. Merchants Nat. Bank (1906) 75 Neb. 838 [106 N.W. 996, 997-998]; but cf. Hay v. Weber (1891) 79 Wis. 587 [48 N.W. 859, 860] [denying the existence of any independently compensable visibility right where the defendant s bay window did not affect access to the plaintiff s store].)4 2. At page 519, footnote 5. Delete the footnote text and insert in its place: Williams, supra, 150 Cal. 592, however, did leave open the possibility that the landowner might lack enforceable abutter s rights were it shown that the railway s switching tower, for which the city had implicitly granted a license, necessarily had to be placed on the sidewalk or street, instead of upon nearby private property. (Id. at pp. 595-596.) 3. At page 519, first full paragraph, delete the second sentence. This modification does not affect the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
