IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA
S

  

JOHN S. LA TOUR,                                      )
         
Plaintiff,                                                                 
)
           
v.                                                        )
                                                                      )
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS     )   File Number:
BRANDT WARWICK                                   )   02-5001
CASEY JONES                                              )          
KIT WILLIAMS                                             )
BOB ESTES                                                   )
MIKE MCKIMMEY                                        )

       
Defendants, in both their individual and official          )       
         
Capacities.
                                                  )
____________________________________

  

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
The Issue of the Facial Constitutionality of the Fayetteville, Arkansas
Sign Ordinance, UDO Chapter 174 (Formally Ch. 158)

 

 INTRODUCTION 

            1.  I am filing this motion for partial summary judgment in an attempt to expedite this case and preserve scarce judicial resources.  Other issues in this case will require the finder of fact to intervene, but the facial constitutionality of the ordinance will require no such intervention.  Filed contemporaneously with this motion is a brief in its support. 

POSITION AND ARGUMENTS 

2.  It is undisputed that the Fayetteville Unified Development Ordinance,  Title 15, Chapter 174, formally chapter 158 (the “sign ordinance” or the “ordinance”), is the Fayetteville law that governs signs in the city limits of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.   Moreover, in order to rule on the constitutional nature of this ordinance as drafted, no other genuine issue of material fact exists.  Indeed, a simple reading of the ordinance will expose the facial unconstitutional provisions that produce content-based regulations and an illegal prior restraint.

3.  For the Court’s convenience I have attached a copy of the ordinance to this motion as Exhibit A.

            CONCLUSION            

            4.  Thus, I motion this honorable Court under the authority of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56.

            WHEREFORE, premises considered, I ask and pray:

            1.  That this Court enter summary judgment on the constitutionality of the ordinance on its face in favor of the Plaintiff; and,

            2.  For all other relief which this Court considers correct and just. 

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted, 

                                                                                    JOHN S. LA TOUR  

                                                                                    BY:  ________________________

                                                                                                John S. La Tour, Pro Se 

October 7, 2002 

JOHN S. LA TOUR
Certified Public Accountant
112 Center Street, Suite 560
Fayetteville, AR  72701
(479) 443-7878

 

 

EXHIBIT A

Fayetteville, Arkansas

Unified Development Ordinance,  Title 15, Chapter 174, Formally Chapter 158

 

Back to Legal Pleadings

Back to Home