Kitsap County V. Mattress Outlet/Kevin Gould
- ISSUE:
- Mattress Outlet files a case against Kitsap County for unconstitutionally prohibiting it from using rain coat clad workers in advertising products.
- SUBSTANTIVE FACTS:
- Kitsap County is sued by the petitioner for contravening the constitution
- It prohibits the Mattress Outlet from conducting its businesses without any prohibition
- Kitsap County is sued under Kitsap’s Code number KCC 17.445.0770 (C)
- PROCEDURAL FACTS:
- On 03/27/2003, Mattress Outlet moved to Superior Court of Kitsap County
- The respondent was sued of prohibiting the petitioner from using the rain coat clad workers during advertisements
- It was argued that this was unconstitutional and in violation of its rights
- The case was argued upon on 02/09/2004 by Justice Hon. Jay B. Roof
- Argument was based on KCC code 17.110.675 which stipulates that Mattress’ rain coats are worn in all types of whether
- This makes them fit to be defined as a sign or portable sign
- HOLDING:
- The sign ordinance was found to be unconstitutionally vague
- It was unconstitutional to apply such a restriction on Mattress Outlets because KCC 17.110.675 disqualifies such a control of speech
- Reasoning:
- The Kitsap County has a jurisdictional authority to determine the operations within its area. It can formulate by laws to govern the operations of all the activities within this area
- Mattress Outlets has a right to determine the kind of operations it should be engaged in without unnecessarily being unconstitutionally restricted
- In this regard, the sign ordinance was found to be constitutionally overboard and could not exert any prohibition that could hold water.
- Further more, an act that makes it illegal for people to put on signage (Discovery Network) offers very little merit in aesthetics as well as beauty, in case of any. No evidencewas presented to confirm that Mattresses Outlet Sign lead to any impact on road safety. Speculated damages cannot be used to justify a restriction on ones freedom to practice free speech.
- JUDGEMENT:
Facts: the Federal Government of the United States of America (USA) was taken to court by Mr. Jones.
Issue:
Rule: the case was argued upon on 2/10/2012 and decided upon on 11/13/2012. It was rejected by the Federal Court decision on this day.
Procedural History: Mr. James Bormes’s case was argued on 2/10/2012. On 11/13/2012, the final decision was made. The court ruled that the US Federal government was not to blame for the revealing of the secrets of the plaintiff’s credit card details. This was based on the s. 1681 which grants FCRA a privilege of giving immunity to the Federal government to have waiver over the Tucker Act which overrides FCRA.
Holding: The Supreme Court therefore found the US Federal not guilty of the accusation. It enjoys immunity over FCRA matters.
Reasoning: the Federal Government is free to act on its own privileges as provided by the White Mountain Apache Tribe, Supra; Mitchell II, 463, US 2006. It guarantees the US government powers to violate the FCRA regulations.
Hence, in my opinion, I agree that it was not to be held responsible for the accusations from the plaintiff. The case should not be appealed. Both the defending and plaintiff teams must accept that ruling.
