Regency Outdoor Advertising Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent.
No. S132619 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YC037625 California Supreme Court Filed October 11, 2006
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.