Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03926/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03926-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3926

___________

Barker Sanitation, an Iowa *

Corporation, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

City of Nebraska City, Nebraska, * District Court for the District

* of Nebraska.

Defendant-Appellee, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

v. *

*

Waste Connections of Nebraska, Inc., *

*

Intervenor Defendant- *

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 17, 2004

Filed: June 25, 2004

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Following an open request for proposals in which three out-of-state solid waste

disposal entities submitted bids, the City of Nebraska City adopted an ordinance

granting Waste Connections of Nebraska, Inc. an exclusive franchise to collect the

Appellate Case: 03-3926 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/25/2004 Entry ID: 1781241 
*

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

-2-

solid waste within the City’s limits. In conjunction with the ordinance, the City

entered into a franchise agreement with Waste Connections. Later, Barker Sanitation,

an Iowa corporation engaged in the business of refuse collection services, began

serving waste collection customers in the City in violation of the ordinance. The City

issued a cease and desist letter to Barker Sanitation, and Barker Sanitation appealed

to the City Council, which decided to enforce the ordinance. In response, Barker

Sanitation brought this civil rights action against the City asserting its adoption of the

ordinance granting the exclusive franchise to Waste Connections violated the

dormant Commerce Clause. Following a bench trial, the district court*

 held the City

ordinance did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. 

To prevail on its dormant Commerce Clause claim, Barker Sanitation had the

burden to show that the ordinance discriminates against interstate commerce on its

face or in its purpose or effects, or that the burden the ordinance imposes on interstate

commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the asserted local benefits. South Dakota

Farm Bureau, Inc. v. Hazeltine, 340 F.3d 583, 593 (8th Cir. 2003). The district court

held the ordinance did not discriminate against out-of-state interests on its face, in

effect, or in its purpose, and the numerous local benefits achieved were not

outweighed by the incidental burdens on interstate commerce. 

On appeal, Barker Sanitation contends the ordinance discriminates against

interstate commerce through its purpose of economic protectionism and through its

effect of preventing out-of-state companies from being able to compete for the

processing of solid waste in the City. Barker Sanitation also asserts the district court

erroneously found the ordinance had numerous local benefits that only incidentally

burdened interstate commerce. Having carefully reviewed Barker Sanitation’s

arguments, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude the district court properly

Appellate Case: 03-3926 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/25/2004 Entry ID: 1781241 
-3-

analyzed the case. Because we have nothing to add to the district court’s analysis, we

affirm without extended discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3926 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/25/2004 Entry ID: 1781241