Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
26. Should the court grant the city's motion?
The homeowner then sued the city in federal district court, challenging the meter-replacement plan on due process grounds and seeking to enjoin its enforcement. The city moved to dismiss. While the city's motion was pending, the city council passed an emergency ordinance requiring both prior notice and property owner consent before the removal or replacement of any electric meter.
A homeowner who opposed the installation of the wireless meters was denied his request for a hearing on the city's plan. The homeowner then blocked the city's access to his house, obstructing the city's effort to replace the old meter. The city responded by threatening to arrest and prosecute the homeowner for disorderly conduct.
A city owned and operated an electric utility that supplied electricity to the city's businesses and residences. Citing the need for efficiency, the city implemented a plan to replace old electric meters with wireless meters in businesses and residences. The city's plan did not include advance notice to property owners or a method to obtain consent from property owners.
This is a last question in category
« Go to questions from category Judicial ReviewComments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. «Capable of repetition yet evading review» applies only in situations where litigation is unlikely to be completed because of the short-term nature of an issue. That is not the case here.
B is incorrect. The voluntary cessation exception does not apply when it is unreasonable to expect that the unlawful conduct will recur. Here, the emergency ordinance's explicit requirements of prior notice and owner consent make it unreasonable to expect that the city will attempt to change the homeowner's meter. In addition, the only relief sought by the homeowner was an injunction against the previous ordinance, which is no longer in effect.
D is incorrect. Ripeness is determined when a suit is filed. Here, the case was ripe, given the city's attempts to install the meter and its threats of prosecution.