Darrow Aiona v. George T. H. Pai, 516 F.2d 892 (9th Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Darrow Aiona v. George T. H. Pai, 516 F.2d 892 (9th Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Taxpayers for Vincent v. Members of the City Council of Los Angeles (ca9, 1982-07-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Taxpayers for Vincent v. Members of the City Council of Los Angeles
9th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
The Baldwin court noted that political “[p]osters and signs are erected adjacent to ‘traditional first amendment forums, such as public sidewalks, and other thoroughfares,” Aiona v. Pai, 516 F.2d 892, 893 (9th Cir. 1975) where ‘expressive activity may be restricted only for weighty reasons.’ Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 115 , 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2303 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972).” 540 F.2d at 1366 (footnote omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Taxpayers For Vincent v. Members Of The City Council Of The City Of Los Angeles
9th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
The Baldwin court noted that political "(p)osters and signs are erected adjacent to 'traditional first amendment forums, such as public sidewalks, and other thoroughfares," Aiona v. Pai, 516 F.2d 892, 893 (9th Cir. 1975) where 'expressive activity may be restricted only for weighty reasons.' Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 115 , 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2303 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). " 540 F.2d at 1366 (footnote omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alan L. Baldwin and George Q. Cannon, Jr. v. Redwood City, Alan L. Baldwin and George Q. Cannon, Jr. v. Redwood City
9th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
Baldwin and Cannon seek to use posters in political campaigning, and “the constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.” Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272 , 91 S.Ct. 621, 625 , 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971). 11 Posters and signs are erected adjacent to “traditional first amendment forums, such as public sidewalks and other thoroughfares,” Aiona v. Pai, 516 F.2d 892, 893 (9th Cir. 1975) 12 where “expressive activity may be restricted only for weighty reasons.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Selah Alliance for Equality v. City of Selah
E.D. Wash. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See ACLU, 333 F.3d at 11 1101–1102 (“The fact that the primary use of the property is not as a park or public 12 thoroughfare is irrelevant as long as there is no concrete evidence that use for 13 expressive activity would significantly disrupt the principal uses.”) (emphasis in 14 original). 15 Second, with respect to the physical characteristics of the forum, the parking 16 strips, adjacent to the street and sidewalk on either side, are centrally located in the 17 City of Selah and integrated into the surrounding locale so as to provide “no 18 alteration of expectations that would ju…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." City of Antioch v. Candidates' Outdoor Graphic Service
N.D. Cal. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Aiona v. Pai, 516 F.2d 892 (9th Cir.1975) (Hawaii statute banning movable political signs but not commercial signs from sidewalks violates equal protection); Orazio v. Town of North Hempstead, 426 F.Supp. 1144 (E.D.N.Y.1977) (ordinance limiting posting of political wall signs to six weeks before election impermissibly discriminates on the basis of political content); John Donnelly & Sons v. Campbell, 639 F.2d 6 (1st Cir.1980), aff'd, 453 U.S. 916 , 101 S.Ct. 3151 , 69 L.Ed.2d 999 (1981) (state law banning billboards with limited exceptions imposed greater restrictions on ideological t…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Darrow Aiona
v.
George T. H. Pai, Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, Barry J. C. Chung, Prosecuting Attorney of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii
74-1469.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 13, 1975.
516 F.2d 892
Published

516 F.2d 892

Darrow AIONA et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
George T. H. PAI, Attorney General of the State of Hawaii,
Defendant-Appellant,
Barry J. C. Chung, Prosecuting Attorney of the City and
County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, et al., Defendants.

No. 74-1469.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

May 13, 1975.

Peter J. Levinson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendant-appellant.

Winston Mirikitani, Honolulu, Hawaii, Michael Town, Wailuku, Hawaii, Joseph T. Kiefer, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiffs-appellees.

OPINION

Before CHAMBERS, ELY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~892]1

Denying a motion to convene a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281, a single district judge issued an Order declaring Hawaii Rev.Stat. § 291C-77(c) (1973 Supp.) unconstitutional and enjoining the statute's enforcement. The Attorney General of Hawaii appeals.

2

The contested statute bans movable political campaign signs from sidewalks and other areas adjacent to highways. The statute's ban does not extend to signs containing other types of messages, e. g., commercial placards or signs carried by picketers in labor disputes.[1] We agree with the district judge's view that the statute is plainly and undeniably unconstitutional under the holding in Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). Cf. Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298, 94 S.Ct. 2714, 41 L.Ed.2d 770 (1974), in which the Court distinguished a city's decision to ban political advertisements from the city-owned transit system, which the Court approved, from a ban on political advertisements in traditional first amendment forums, such as public sidewalks and other thoroughfares.

3

Since the unconstitutionality of the statute here involved was settled beyond question by the Supreme Court's decision in Mosley, the district judge correctly determined that it was unnecessary to convene a three-judge court. Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31, 82 S.Ct. 549, 7 L.Ed.2d 512 (1962); see Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512, 518-19, 93 S.Ct. 854, 35 L.Ed.2d 36 (1973).

The District Court's order is

[*~893]4

Affirmed.

1

Hawaii Rev.Stat. § 291C-77(c) (1973 Supp.) states:

Except as otherwise provided by county ordinance, no person shall hold or display a movable sign within the right-of-way boundaries of a public highway or on the sidewalk abutting a public highway or in an area adjacent to the highway for the purpose of carrying on political campaign activities as defined in section 19-6(7) and which seek to draw the attention of occupants of motor vehicles using the highway. A movable sign is any portable device, display, emblem, billboard, notice, picture, painting or writing, other than official signs placed or required by the state or county.