WDW Properties v. City of Sumter
South Carolina Supreme Court
535 S.E.2d 631 (2000)
![DD](https://quimbee-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/educator/photo/376/DariusDehghan.webp)
- Written by Darius Dehghan, JD
Facts
The Internal Revenue Code authorized the use of tax-exempt municipal bonds to finance business enterprises in blighted urban areas. These areas were known as empowerment zones. The downtown area in the city of Sumter (the city) (defendant) was designated as an empowerment zone. Uptown Synergy, LLC (defendant) was planning a development project in the downtown area. The project consisted of renovating rundown buildings and was expected to create jobs. In its application for financing to the South Carolina Jobs-Economic Development Authority (JEDA) (defendant), Uptown Synergy stated that the project would revitalize the downtown area. The JEDA sought to issue tax-exempt bonds so that it could loan the bond proceeds to Uptown Synergy to finance the project. Due to the tax-exempt nature of the bonds, Uptown Synergy would pay lower interest costs than it would pay if it had to obtain conventional financing. WDW Properties (plaintiff) brought suit, contending that it would violate the South Carolina Constitution to provide government-sponsored financing for Uptown Synergy’s project. The lower court found that it would be constitutionally permissible to provide government-sponsored financing for Uptown Synergy’s project. WDW appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Waller, 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.