In Coffey v. Fayette County, 279 Ga. 111 (610 SE2d 41) (2005), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the trial court's denial of the appellants' petition on the ground that the trial court had failed to consider whether the 1999 ordinance was content-neutral and was narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and whether Fayette County had drawn "its regulations to suppress no more speech than is necessary to achieve its goals." Id. at 111-112. On remand, the trial court determined that while some provisions of the sign ordinance were indeed unconstitutional as not content-neutral, the provisions limiting residents to one sign of a certain size were both severable and constitutional, being the least restrictive means to achieve county goals including traffic safety and neighborhood aesthetics. See Coffey v. Fayette County, 280 Ga. 656, 657 (631 SE2d 703) (2006). The appellants appealed, and the Supreme Court again reversed, holding that the trial court erred when it "deferred without question to the decisions made at the discretion of the County without receiving evidence or fully considering whether the ordinance was the least restrictive means of achieving the county's goals." Id. at 658. The Court then remanded the case a second time. Id.