Cormack v. Settle-Beshears
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
474 F.3d 528 (2007)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
J. Michael Cormack (plaintiff) permitted fireworks sales on his property outside the City of Van Buren, Arkansas. The city annexed the property and then passed an ordinance banning fireworks sales. Police forcefully closed down the fireworks business, and Cormack was cited and convicted in city court for violating the fireworks ordinance. Cormack appealed his conviction to a state district court. Before that appeal was decided, Cormack also filed suit in federal district court against the city, City Attorney Candice Settle-Beshears, and two city policemen (codefendants). The federal charges alleged that the defendants violated Cormack's federal constitutional rights under (1) the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, by failing to compensate him for the annexation of his property; (2) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by giving him legally insufficient notice of the city's annexation or fireworks ordinance plans; and (3) the Fourth Amendment, by forcefully closing the fireworks business. The district court dismissed Cormack's claims against the individual defendants, as well as Cormack's claims against the city, because he failed to show that state remedies for the alleged violations were unavailable or inadequate. Cormack appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Murphy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.