Cardinal Towing & Auto Repair, Inc. v. City of Bedford

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the regulation of towing companies falls under the express language of section 14501(c)(1), but that a rotational tow list is permissible under the market participant exception to preemption
• recognizing that courts have looked to whether “government entities seek to advance general societal goals rather than narrow proprietary interests through the use of their contracting power”
• recognizing that courts have looked to whether \government entities seek to advance general societal goals rather than narrow proprietary interests through the use of their contracting power\
• holding that city’s rate was proprietary even while a third party pays for service
• holding that a state’s action is more likely to be proprietary than regulatory when the “narrow scope of the challenged action defeat[s] an inference that its primary goal was to encourage a general policy rather than address a specific proprietary problem”
• concluding ordinance was not a regulation because city merely created efficiencies for police-initiated non-consent tow market

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).