Martin v. Stewart
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
499 F.3d 360 (2007)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Jimmy Martin and Lucky Strike, LLC (together, Martin) (plaintiffs) operated video-poker machines. Martin sued a few South Carolina officials (defendants) in federal district court to stop enforcement of two state statutes. The statutes made it a misdemeanor to maintain or operate certain devices related to “games of chance” and were enacted by the state under its police power as a regulation of gambling. Under one statute, law enforcement was directed to seize prohibited machines without any pre-enforcement method of testing a particular machine’s legality. Martin alleged that the statutes violated the federal constitutional principles of due process and equal protection. Specifically, Martin claimed that the statute’s language was void for vagueness insofar as it failed to provide reasonable notice as to which types of devices were prohibited. According to Martin, the game Monopoly might be prohibited. Martin also claimed that the statutes allowed for discriminatory enforcement. Under the doctrine of Burford abstention, the district court dismissed the constitutional claims. Martin appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Motz, J.)
Dissent (Wilkinson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.
