similarly held that although “the repeal or amendment of a law moots challenges to the original law ... [t]he existence of [a] damages claim preserves the plaintiffs’ backward-looking right to challenge the original law and to preserve a live case or controversy over that dispute.” Midwest Media Prop., L.L.C. v. Symmes Twp., 503 F.3d 456, 460-61 (6th Cir. 2007). See also Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Englewood, 671 F.3d 564, 581 (6th Cir. 2012) (“However, if the plaintiffs complaint includes a claim for damages, that claim ‘preserves the plaintiff[’s] backward-looking right to challenge the original law and to preserve a live case or controversy over that dispute.’”) (quoting Midwest Media, 503 F.3d at 461); Prime Media, Inc. v. City of Brentwood, 398 F.3d 814, 824 (6th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). Even “a claim for nominal damages ... is
holding that court may not sever clause from initial ordinance and submit remainder of ordinance to voters holding that a courts order invalidating part of a city billboard ordinance did not moot a claim for damages arising from that invalidated portion of the ordinance holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se holding city ordinance preempted by state law because ordinance prohibited act specifically allowed under state law holding that a plaintiff had standing to attack an entire ordinance including portions of the ordinance not applied to the plaintiff