The General Assembly hereby finds and declares that outdoor advertising is a legitimate commercial use of private property adjacent to roads and highways but that the erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs and devices in areas in the vicinity of the right-of-way of the interstate and primary highway systems within the State should be controlled and regulated in order to promote the safety, health, welfare and convenience and enjoyment of travel on and protection of the public investment in highways within the State, to prevent unreasonable distraction of operators of motor vehicles and to prevent interference with the effectiveness of traffic regulations and to promote safety on the highways, to attract tourists and promote the prosperity, economic well-being and general welfare of the State, and to preserve and enhance the natural scenic beauty of the highways and areas in the vicinity of the State highways and to promote the reasonable, orderly and effective display of such signs, displays and devices, and to secure the right of validly permitted outdoor advertising to be clearly viewed by the traveling public. It is the intention of the General Assembly to provide and declare herein a public policy and statutory basis for the regulation and control of outdoor advertising. (1967, c. 1248, s. 2; 1999-404, s. 6; 2011-397, s. 9.)
Notes of Decisions
Capital Outdoor, Inc. v. Tolson, 582 S.E.2d 717 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “While the General Assembly has declared “that outdoor advertising is a legitimate commercial use of private property adjacent to roads and highways,” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-127 (2001), petitioners appropriately do not contend that this case involves a fundamental right.”
Cnty. of Cumberland v. E. Fed. Corp., 269 S.E.2d 672 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “The North Carolina General Assembly, in the context of interstate and primary highways, has already articulated a forceful policy statement on outdoor advertising: “Section 136-127. Declaration of policy. — The General Assembly hereby finds and declares that outdoor advertising…”
Ace-Hi, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 319 S.E.2d 294 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “It took care to provide an extra measure of judicial review of permit revocations.”
Bracey Advert. Co. v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 241 S.E.2d 146 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).
“G.S. 136-127. By its own terms, Article 11 provisions were to have no force or effect “until federal funds are made available to the State for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Article, and the Board of Transportation has entered into an agreement with the…”
Bracey Advert. Co. v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 302 S.E.2d 490 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983).
“In its declaration of policy, G.S. 136-127 declares that “outdoor advertising is a legitimate commercial use of private property adjacent to roads and highways,” and then declares a policy of regulation and control of same.”
Cain v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 560 S.E.2d 584 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “The Outdoor Advertising Control Act (“OACA”)is codified in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-126 (1999). The purpose of the Act is to “promote the safety, health, welfare and convenience and enjoyment of travel on and protection of the public investment in highways within the State, .”
Advert. Co. v. Bradshaw, SEC. of Transp., 268 S.E.2d 816 (1980).
“The obvious purpose of the statute and regulation is to gradually phase out signs, either individually or in the aggregate, *20 which existed at the time of enactment but which tended to harm the public interest and welfare by causing ugliness, distraction, and safety hazards…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.