Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fisher Buick, Inc. v. City of Fayetteville
Citations: 286 Ark. 49; 689 S.W.2d 350; 1985 Ark. LEXIS 2008Docket: 85-11
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; May 13, 1985; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Fisher Buick, Inc. leases three signs that do not comply with the size and setback restrictions of Fayetteville's comprehensive sign ordinance, which required nonconforming signs to be removed or altered by January 19, 1980. Although the lease originally ended in 1981, it was extended to 1986 after the amortization period, and Fisher applied for a variance to maintain the signs, which was denied. The circuit court upheld the ordinance's application, ruling it a reasonable exercise of police power. Fisher argues that the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to its situation, claiming potential future losses of up to 2% in yearly gross income if forced to comply. The court applied the reasonableness test to evaluate the ordinance's impact on Fisher, considering factors such as expected business losses and property value. However, as a lessee, Fisher lacked standing to argue the lessor's losses. The trial court found no unreasonable harm, noting that Fisher had knowingly extended the lease after the amortization period, thereby choosing to violate the ordinance. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Fisher cannot claim unreasonable losses from its deliberate actions. Justice Hickman concurred with the ruling based on precedent.