Article

Equal Protection.

Prior History:

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. The Village of South Barrington,958 F. Supp. 1285 (N.D. Ill., 1997), abstracted at1998 Annual Survey513.

Note: After a dispute arose between the applicant and the municipality/beneficiary in which the applicant refused to extend a standby letter of credit required by the municipality, the municipality passed an ordinance allowing for a drawing on any letter of credit that was about to expire and had not been extended. The applicant then brought suit against the municipality, alleging that the ordinance was maliciously directed at him and, thus, was a denial of equal protection. The trial court denied the beneficiary's motion for summary judgment on the equal protection claim. The beneficiary then filed this motion to reconsider based on a precedential decision, which had not been cited in the prior proceeding. That case found that a facially benign law can violate equal protection if the "legislative body acted out of a constitutionally impermissible motive."

While not binding, on reconsideration, the court did find the newly cited precedent to be persuasive. Applying the newly adopted test, the court ruled that the applicant had not produced enough evidence to show a malicious intent on the part of the legislative body. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider was granted and the case against the beneficiary was dismissed.

©1999 INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of ICC or the other partners in DC-PRO.