December 03, 2013

Basketball hoop resolution

Anyone recall this local (Delaware) story about a family's ... "determination" to keep a basketball hoop up near their house despite it being in violation of state "Free Zone" law? Well, the whole dispute has been settled:

Many of the [McCafferty's] lawsuit’s counts were dismissed by Brady early on and the case had been narrowed to claims about retroactive and selective enforcement of the state’s “clear zone” law and if DelDOT employees had immunity from suit.

Brady found that DelDOT employees, who were doing their jobs, did have immunity and that warning letters sent by DelDOT months earlier satisfied the need for due process. The judge also ruled that the “clear zone” law is safety-related and that enforcement of safety laws cannot be challenged as improperly “retroactive.”

As for selective enforcement, Brady wrote that in order to prevail on that claim, the enforcement must “shock the conscience” of the court.

“Though the court would rather have seen this matter resolved differently, its conscience is not shocked. The intrusion was minimal (relative to the standards for ‘shocking the conscience’), and the mandate and purpose of the statute is clear and persuasive,” wrote Brady, adding that seven other similar basketball poles were removed that day.

Well there you go. Seven other b-ball poles removed the same day, yet the McCaffertys claimed "selective enforcement." Doesn't seem very "selective" to me.

Posted by Hube at December 3, 2013 07:01 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Post a comment









Remember personal info?