State Ex Rel. Hood v. Louisville Tire Center, Inc.
55 So. 3d 1068
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Mississippi enacted a price-gouging statute targeting post-emergency price increases; Louisville Tire Center (Fair Oil) was accused of violating it after Hurricane Katrina.
- Governor declared a state of emergency on Aug. 26, 2005; Katrina struck Mississippi Aug. 29, 2005, affecting statewide emergency conditions.
- Attorney General used a 30-day pre-emergency window to compute a base price and alleged Fair Oil charged prices above that base post-emergency.
- Fair Oil argued the statute was vague, challenging terms like 'same market area' and 'at or immediately before' as applied.
- Trial court held 'at or immediately before' vague but 'same market area' not void on its face; case proceeded to appellate review on vagueness and summary-judgment questions.
- Court held the statute is not void on its face and remanded to assess as-applied conduct; cross-appeal on 'same market area' found not void on its face.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Price-Gouging Statute void for vagueness on its face? | State argues statute provides adequate notice and standards. | Fair Oil contends essential terms are vague and unconstitutional. | Not void on its face. |
| Is the term 'at or immediately before' vague as applied to Fair Oil? | State maintains a judicial interpretation will determine applicability. | Fair Oil contends the phrase is vague and cannot be applied. | Remanded for as-applied vagueness review. |
| Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment based on vagueness considerations? | State argues summary judgment premature; conduct should be analyzed under statute. | Fair Oil argues statute is vague and warrants judgment in its favor. | Summary-judgment denial required; remand for full as-applied analysis. |
| Is the phrase 'same market area' void on its face? | State defends 'same market area' as sufficiently definite for enforcement. | Fair Oil contends it is impermissibly vague as applied to market definitions. | Not void on its face; affirmed on cross-appeal. |
| Should Fair Oil be evaluated under a judicial interpretation of the statute on remand? | State urges applying its interpretation during proceedings. | Fair Oil cautions against premature application of interpretations. | Remand to evaluate conduct under judicial interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) (void-for-vagueness standards and due-process considerations cited)
- Fulgham v. State, 47 So.3d 698 (Miss. 2010) (guidance on vagueness and standards)
- Harris v. Miss. Real Estate Comm'n, 500 So.2d 958 (Miss. 1986) (vagueness and notice requirements considered)
- Richmond v. City of Corinth, 816 So.2d 373 (Miss. 2002) (due-process and standards for void-for-vagueness analysis)
- Jones v. State, 710 So.2d 870 (Miss. 1998) (due-process and vagueness considerations cited)
- Meeks v. Tallahatchie County, 513 So.2d 563 (Miss. 1987) (due-process and standards for vagueness analysis)
- Vill. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (general-standing vagueness principles for statutes)
- Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223 (1951) (statutory interpretation principles cited)