S44590 Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon
Case Date: 03/08/2001
Docket No: 94-3953-L2
|
FILED: March 8, 2001 OUTDOOR MEDIA DIMENSIONS INCORPORATED, Petitioner on Review, v. STATE OF OREGON, Respondents on Review. On review from the Court of Appeals.* Argued and submitted November 9, 1998. Alan R. Herson, Jacksonville, argued the cause and submitted the briefs and memoranda for petitioner on review. Rives Kistler, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondents on review. With him on the briefs were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General. James E. Mountain Jr., Salem, and Donald Joe Willis, Portland, filed the briefs for amicus curiae Oregon Outdoor Advertising Association. G. Kenneth Shiroishi, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Oregon. Madelyn Wessel, Portland, filed the briefs for amicus curiae City of Portland. Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Leeson, and Riggs, Justices.** RIGGS, J. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed. *Appeal from Jackson County Circuit Court, Loren L. Sawyer, Judge. 150 Or App 106, 945 P2d 614 (1997). *Van Hoomissen, J., retired on December 31, 2000, and did not participate in the decision of this case. Kulongoski and De Muniz, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. RIGGS, J. Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. (plaintiff) brought this civil action that, among other things, challenges the constitutionality of the Oregon Motorist Information Act (OMIA). ORS 377.700 to 377.840; ORS 377.992. Plaintiff contends that the OMIA, which regulates signs along Oregon highways, violates the free speech provisions of both the state and federal constitutions. The trial court disagreed and granted summary judgment to defendants, the State of Oregon and three of its employees (collectively "the state"). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 150 Or App 106, 945 P2d 614 (1997). This court allowed review, primarily to address plaintiff's arguments under the Oregon Constitution. As discussed below, however, we are unable to reach those arguments in this case. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the trial court. The legislature enacted the OMIA in 1971. Or Laws 1971, ch 770. The OMIA was Oregon's effort to comply with the federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (HBA), 23 USC |