Morrow v. Truckload Fireworks, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that plaintiff “[had] not identified a vested property right but, at best, [had] only identified a personal right to sell and display fireworks\ and that \a property owner has no absolute right to use his property for a particular purpose”
• overruling the argument that “the trial court had jurisdiction because the fireworks ban would destroy [Truckload Fireworks, Inc.’s] property before the ban’s validity could be tested in court”
• \The concept of personal rights is broader [than \vested property rights”] and includes the right to conduct a specific activity.”
• “[E]ven if the ban had prohibited the sale, rather than the use, of all fireworks . . . no vested property right would be implicated because a property owner has no absolute right to use his property for a particular purpose.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).