Facts

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. operated a store in the City of Turlock. It wanted to build a second, larger store, called a super-center -- a combined Wal-Mart store and supermarket -- at a different location in the city. The city then passed an ordinance banning the establishment of a super-center within the city. Wal-Mart filed suit against the city.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged violation of the federal equal protection and commerce clauses. It argued that defendant was discriminating against it because it was an out-of-state company, in order to protect local supermarkets. It further contended that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and uncertain.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The city claimed that super-centers are different from other stores because they cause a greater impact on local traffic and blight. It denied discriminating against Wal-Mart because its ban applied to all super-centers, whether operated by in-state or out-of-state companies.

Damages

Plaintiff alleged millions of dollars in damages.

Result

Defendant was granted summary judgment in its favor. Specifically, the judge found that the ordinance did not discriminate between in-state and out-of-state companies, and that defendant had a rational basis for distinguishing stores based on their size and local impact.