Legal Opinion
Martin v. Stewart
District Court, D. South Carolina
Decided June 29, 2006No. C/A 2:06-400-DCNPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER and OPINION
NORTON, District Judge.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Jimmy Martin (“Martin”) and Lucky Strike, LLC (“Lucky Strike”) assert constitutional challenges to portions of the South Carolina Video Game Machines Act, S.C.Code Ann. §§ 12-21-2710-2712 (2000), and request this court enjoin the statutes’ enforcement. Defendants Robert Stewart, Henry McMaster and Ralph Hoisington are named in their official capacities 1 as law enforcement officers under the rubric of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908).
Martin manufactures video amusement machines in South America and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Burford v. Sun Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Martin v. StewartCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007
- Delmarva Power & Light Co. v. MorrisonDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2007
- Martin v. StewartCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007
- Martin v. StewartCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007