From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Potter v. Murray City
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
760 F.2d 1065 (1985)
Facts
Royston E. Potter (plaintiff) was terminated from his employment as a police officer in Murray City, Utah (defendant). Potter was terminated for violating Article III of the Utah Constitution by practicing polygamy, which was forbidden under state law. In response, Potter filed a suit against the city, the chief of police, the Murray City Civil Service Commission, Utah’s governor, Utah’s attorney general, and the state itself (defendants). Because Utah’s prohibition on polygamy was mandated by Congress in the Utah Enabling Act, under which Utah was admitted into the Union, the United States (defendant) was also brought into the suit. Potter argued that the law prohibiting polygamy was unconstitutional because it violated (1) his right to the free exercise of religion found in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) his right to privacy found in the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) his rights to due process and equal protection, also found in the Fourteenth Amendment, because the law was in desuetude (i.e., discontinued due to disuse). Potter also argued that the law was void because of the equal-footing doctrine. The district court entered a verdict for the defendants. Potter appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holloway, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 606,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 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.
