Court Opinion

ID: 9684772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:11:30.859618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:59.508889
License: Public Domain

Hallows, J.
(dissenting). I would reverse on the ground sec. 16.18 (2) (i) is discriminatory and, therefore, uncon*594stitutional. I do not challenge the exercise of the police power to regulate signs which are hazardous to public safety. This section is discriminatory in my opinion because it picks out only gasoline station signs and not other drive-in businesses whose signs equally create traffic' hazards. The amount of traffic in and out of a gasoline service station furnishes no basis for a distinction between such stations and other drive-ins. It is common knowledge there is sufficient traffic to justify regulating signs of all drive-in types of businesses. The hazards of getting on and off the street and the inability to see other traffic because of the signs are the same. The size and location of the sign prohibited by the section are equally dangerous whether it advertises gasoline, root beer, hot dogs, hamburger, or a movie.
I am authorized to state Mr. Justice Gordon and Mr. Justice Beilfuss join in this dissent.