From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
Teixeira v. County of Alameda
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
2013 WL 707043 (2013)
Facts
John Teixeira and two others (plaintiffs) formed a partnership in order to open a gun store in Alameda County (county) (defendant). The county had an ordinance that required gun stores to be at least 500 feet from certain places, including residences and some types of schools and businesses. The front door of the partnership’s building was more than 500 feet from the front door of the nearest house, but part of the building was less than 500 feet from that house. The partnership applied for a permit to use the building as a gun shop. The county’s zoning board found that the building violated the 500-foot ordinance but granted the partnership a variance to use the building as a gun store. The zoning board’s decision was appealed to the county board of supervisors, and the supervisors denied the variance and the permit. The partnership sued the county for denying the permit, arguing that the county’s zoning ordinance violated the Second Amendment. The county moved to dismiss the lawsuit. In response to the motion, the partnership claimed that the ordinance burdened the sellers’ and the buyers’ Second Amendment rights because the proposed location was essential to exercising those rights. However, the partnership did not provide any specifics to explain why that particular location was allegedly essential to anyone’s right to own and bear arms.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Illston, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 630,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 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.