Municipal Corporations: Cruel and Unusual Punishment for Violating Ordinance: Trial by Jury

1910 Michigan law review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... ntent at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS authorized a city to regulate billboards, then of course the only question is whether or not the ordinance is in conflict with the state or federal constitution. Phillips v. Denver (1893), I9 Colo. 179, 34 Pac. 902, 41 Am. St. Rep. 230. In City of Rochester v. West (I9oo), I64 N. Y. 510, 58 N. E. 673, 53 L. R. A. 548, 79 Am. St. Rep. 659, the ordinance involved was expressly authorized by the city charter. It was not prohibitive but required that billboards exceeding six feet in height should not be erected without a permit from the common council. But ordinances which provide that no billboard, however safe, shall be erected unless it is placed at a specified distance from the line of the street are "unwarranted invasions of private right" and void.
doi:10.2307/1272900 fatcat:xq6v7k5a2ba5tn7wvjnqvzphue