Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Razorback Cab of Ft. Smith, Inc. v. Flowers
Citations: 122 F.3d 657; 1997 WL 539310Docket: 96-3042
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; September 4, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Razorback Cab of Ft. Smith, Inc. (Razorback) appeals the dismissal of its suit against Dan Flowers, Director of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, and Stribling Boynton, Administrator of the City of Fort Smith. Razorback alleges violations of its constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, as well as breaches of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (UMT Act) and relevant state laws and city ordinances. Razorback claims to be the sole provider of public mass transportation in Fort Smith since its inception and asserts that the defendants failed to follow proper procedures in awarding UMT Act funds after the city sought proposals for managing a public transit system and subsequently contracted with Community Resource Group, Inc. (CRG) for a demand-response mini bus service. The district court ruled that Razorback lacked standing to bring a UMT Act claim, noting that the Act does not explicitly permit private lawsuits for its violations. The court referenced previous cases that denied an implied private cause of action under the UMT Act, while also acknowledging contrary rulings that allowed specific groups to challenge agency actions related to the Act. Razorback's appeal follows the district court’s decision to grant motions to dismiss from both defendants. Cases that refuse to imply a private cause of action under the Urban Mass Transportation (UMT) Act are persuasive. The ruling in **United Handicapped Federation v. Andre** is distinguishable because it involved standing based on section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, not the UMT Act itself. The court agrees with the district court that the UMT Act does not intend to grant a private right of action to a competitor, Razorback, simply because another entity received UMT Act funds. Razorback's claims of due process and equal protection are intertwined with its UMT Act claims; the complaint relies on challenges to the notice and distribution of UMT Act funds, and Razorback does not possess property rights in those funds or in the acquisition process. Furthermore, Razorback has no right to operate free from competition from services subsidized by UMT Act funds. The district court also dismissed Razorback’s state law claim, which was based on a statute pertaining only to taxicabs, as mini buses do not fit the statutory definition of a taxicab. Consequently, Razorback failed to state a due process claim under state law or regarding city ordinances since it did not specify any alleged violations. Razorback's appeal did identify relevant city ordinances, but they also exclude mini buses. Given that Razorback has not established a claim for relief against either defendant, the court affirms the district court’s dismissal of Razorback's complaint, deeming the Eleventh Amendment immunity issue unnecessary to address.