Legal Opinion
Decatur Liquors, Inc. v. District of Columbia
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided June 16, 2005No. CIV.A. 04-1971(RMC)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COLLYER, District Judge.
Can the Council of the District of Columbia adopt a substantive change to a legislative bill at its Final Reading and pass the bill as amended without public notice and an opportunity for public discussion? Finding that this procedure violated a mandatory provision of the Home Rule Act, the Court will declare the Targeted Ward 4 Moratorium Zone, as provided in Title 1, Section 101(o) of the Omnibus Alcoholic Beverage Amendment Act of 2004 (“Omnibus Act” or “Act”), null and void.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Plaintiffs are holders of Class A and Class B liquor…
2Cases cited54 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- The Superior Beverage Co., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Schieffelin & Co., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee. Goodman Beverage Co., Inc. v. Schieffelin & Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- Superior Beverage Co. v. Schieffelin & Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006