%PDF-1.3
%%
%%Page: 1 1
4 0 obj
<<
/Length 5 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
127.326 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(PUBLISHED) Tj
/F1 20 Tf 85 Tz
-124.106 -30.4 Td
2 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
75.476 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
(FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-78.696 -18 Td
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
2.02 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUTH) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
84.8635 -12.5 Td
(Plaintiff-Appellant,) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
146.4702 -11.7 Td
(No. 05-2050) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-49.7137 -1.4 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-98.9325 -4.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(v.) Tj
-82.6875 -18 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, South Carolina,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
79.148 -12.5 Td
(Defendant-Appellee.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
102.472 -8.5 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-126.3923 -25.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj
-6.6337 -12.7 Td
(for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.) Tj
11.6747 -12.7 Td
(Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.) Tj
51.2635 -12.7 Td
(\(CA-04-22374-CMC\)) Tj
-11.6957 -25.8 Td
(Argued: October 25, 2006) Tj
-7.9868 -25.3 Td
(Decided: September 20, 2007) Tj
-84.648 -25.8 Td
(Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, TRAXLER, Circuit Judge, and) Tj
73.2338 -12.7 Td
(WIDENER, Senior Circuit Judge.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-80.4355 -51 Td
1.2 Tw
(Affirmed by published per curiam opinion. ) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
134.2045 -43.9 Td
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-134.2045 -25.7 Td
3.2 Tw
(ARGUED:) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Jerry Jay Bender, BAKER, RAVENEL & BENDER,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.52 Tw
(L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Mark White,) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -26.2 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.11 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
.1 Tw
(Judge Widener heard oral argument in this case but did not participate) Tj
-10.5 -11.6 Td
1.03 Tw
(in the decision. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.05 Tw
(to 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.05 Tw
(46\(d\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -74.35 m 183.8 -74.35 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -117.3 m 186.6 -82.2 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -169.4 m 186.6 -134.3 l s
.9 w 0 -176.35 m 183.3 -176.35 l s
.5 w 0 -355.35 m 324 -355.35 l s
.5 w 0 -406.25 m 324 -406.25 l s
.5 w 0 -475.45 m 324 -475.45 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
3155
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 11 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 10 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 4 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 2 2
13 0 obj
<<
/Length 14 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.24 Tw
0 Tc
(SPENCER & SPENCER, P.A., Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appel-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.96 Tw
(lee. ) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(ON BRIEF:) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( W. Chaplin Spencer, Jr., SPENCER & SPENCER,) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(P.A., Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellee. ) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
136.7632 -43.7 Td
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-136.7632 -25.5 Td
(PER CURIAM: ) Tj
12 -25.5 Td
1.68 Tw
(Appellant Catawba Indian Tribe \(the Tribe\) filed suit against the) Tj
-12 -12.6 Td
2.27 Tw
(City of Rock Hill \(the City\), alleging that a recently enacted City) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.77 Tw
(Ordinance impaired contracts previously entered into by the parties) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.72 Tw
(for the construction of water infrastructure to serve the Tribe's reser-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.92 Tw
(vation. Because the Ordinance did not impair the contracts entered) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.22 Tw
(into between the Tribe and the City, we conclude that the Contracts) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(Clause of the United States Constitution was not violated.) Tj
158.6477 -25.5 Td
(I.) Tj
-146.6477 -25.5 Td
2.26 Tw
(In 1999, the parties entered into a "WATER AND/OR SEWER) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
6.1 Tw
(SERVICE AGREEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.") Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.34 Tw
(\(J.A. at 114.\)) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( The agreement was essentially a promise from the City) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.6 Tw
(to provide water services in the future so long as the Tribe entered) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.64 Tw
(into a restrictive covenant for future annexation of the Reservation.) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.63 Tw
(\(J.A. at 115 \("Owner acknowledges that a purpose of this Agreement) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
0 Tw
(is to ensure . . . Owner's full and complete cooperation with any effort) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(to annex the subject property."\).\) ) Tj
12 -25.5 Td
2.57 Tw
(Approximately three years later, during the summer and fall of) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
.3 Tw
(2002, the Tribe entered into four separate Extension Agreements with) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.78 Tw
(the City for the construction of water mains and sewer facilities to) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
3.13 Tw
(serve the Tribe's reservation, which is located outside the City's) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.84 Tw
(municipal limits. Under the contracts, the Tribe agreed to pay a total) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.28 Tw
(of $260,464.00 for the construction of sewer mains and accessories,) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.64 Tw
($125,934.00 for the construction of water mains and accessories, and) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.57 Tw
($3,630.00 for the installation of sixty-six water meters. Clause 4 of) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -26 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.35 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
1.28 Tw
(Citations to the J.A. refer to the Joint Appendix filed by the parties) Tj
-10.5 -11.5 Td
1.05 Tw
(to this appeal. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -58.05 m 324 -58.05 l s
.5 w 0 -466.25 m 324 -466.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(2) Tj
60.4432 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
14 0 obj
3709
endobj
12 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 11 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F5 10 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 13 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 3 3
16 0 obj
<<
/Length 17 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.68 Tw
0 Tc
(the contracts concerned the amount to be paid for water meter instal-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.83 Tw
(lations, with each water meter costing $55.00. Clause 4 also stated) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.45 Tw
(that "[t]he water meters will be installed by the City, on request by) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.45 Tw
(the Developer, when water service is needed." \(J.A. at 26.\) The Tribe) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.35 Tw
(quickly made all payments and fully performed under the contracts,) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(although it did not immediately request service. ) Tj
12 -27.6 Td
.15 Tw
(On March 17, 2003, the City adopted an Ordinance imposing water) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.23 Tw
(and wastewater impact fees "for all water and/or wastewater service) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.11 Tw
(requests," including requests for "new service, water and/or waste-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.08 Tw
(water extension requests and agreements, additional meters, or) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.67 Tw
(upgrades of existing services that will create any new or additional) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.56 Tw
(demand on the City's water and/or wastewater systems." \(J.A. at 35.\)) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.92 Tw
(Although it adopted the Ordinance on March 17, the City gave all) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.29 Tw
(interested parties until June 30, 2003 to request service without impo-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(sition of impact fees. ) Tj
12 -27.6 Td
2.32 Tw
(The Tribe did not request service and installation of the meters) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.55 Tw
(until August 2003. At that time, the City imposed an impact fee of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.96 Tw
($100,478.00 in connection with the water meter and service installa-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.48 Tw
(tion. The Tribe paid the sum under protest and initiated this action,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.74 Tw
(complaining that the City's imposition of additional fees violated the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution. ) Tj
12 -27.6 Td
.68 Tw
(Both the Tribe and the City agreed that the case was ripe for sum-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.08 Tw
(mary judgment in the district court and filed cross motions for sum-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.95 Tw
(mary judgment. On August 22, 2005, the district court granted the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.98 Tw
(City's motion and denied the Tribe's motion. Although the district) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.57 Tw
(court assumed, arguendo, that the contracts were impaired, it found) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.06 Tw
(that there was no "substantial" impairment. Alternatively, even if) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.42 Tw
(there was substantial impairment, the district court found that any) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.75 Tw
(such impairment was reasonable and necessary to serve an important) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(public purpose. ) Tj
12 -27.5 Td
2.22 Tw
(The Tribe timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(U.S.C.A. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1291 \(West 2006\).) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(3) Tj
-258.0568 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
17 0 obj
3605
endobj
15 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 11 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 16 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 4 4
19 0 obj
<<
/Length 20 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
156.733 -8 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(II.) Tj
-.322 -25.2 Td
(A.) Tj
-144.411 -25.2 Td
.47 Tw
(We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
1.89 Tw
(in favor of the City, applying the same standard as did the district) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.81 Tw
(court. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Laber v. Harvey) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 438 F.3d 404, 415 \(4th Cir. 2006\) \(en) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.93 Tw
(banc\). Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depo-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.12 Tw
(sitions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.35 Tw
(with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.59 Tw
(any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.15 Tw
(a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56\(c\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(also ) Tj
(Celotex Corp. v.) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.77 Tw
(Catrett) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 477 U.S. 317, 324 \(1986\). We must construe the facts in the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.63 Tw
(light most favorable to the Tribe, and we may not make credibility) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.15 Tw
(determinations or weigh the evidence. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.75 Tw
(Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 477 U.S. 242, 255 \(1986\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Edell & Assocs., P.C. v. Law Offices) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(of Peter G. Angelos) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 264 F.3d 424, 435 \(4th Cir. 2001\). ) Tj
156.7272 -25.2 Td
(B.) Tj
-144.7272 -25.2 Td
1 Tw
(The Contract Clause states that "[n]o State shall . . . pass any . . .) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
1.08 Tw
(Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." U.S. Const. art. I, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.08 Tw
(10,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.4 Tw
(cl. 1. Although the Clause is phrased in absolute terms, it is not inter-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.51 Tw
(preted "absolutely to prohibit the impairment of either government or) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.4 Tw
(private contracts." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Balt. Teachers Union v. Mayor and City Council) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.91 Tw
(of Balt.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 6 F.3d 1012, 1014 \(4th Cir. 1993\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Home Bldg. & Loan) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.56 Tw
(Ass'n v. Blaisdell) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 290 U.S. 398, 428 \(1934\) \(holding that "the prohi-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.05 Tw
(bition is not an absolute one and is not to be read with literal exact-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(ness like a mathematical formula."\). ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
1.41 Tw
(The Supreme Court has formulated a three-part analysis to deter-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.59 Tw
(mine if the Contract Clause has been violated. First, a court must ask) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.15 Tw
(whether there has been an impairment of a contract. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(U. S. Trust) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.65 Tw
(Co. v. New Jersey) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 431 U.S. 1, 17 \(1977\) \(holding that "as a prelimi-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1 Tw
(nary matter, [a] claim requires a determination that the [state action]) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.56 Tw
(has the effect of impairing a contractual obligation"\). Second, a court) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.62 Tw
(must ask "whether the state law has, in fact, operated as a substantial) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.93 Tw
(impairment of a contractual relationship." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Allied Structural Steel Co.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.1 Tw
(v. Spannaus) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 438 U.S. 234, 244 \(1978\). Third, if the court finds a sub-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.54 Tw
(stantial impairment, it must ask "whether that impairment is nonethe-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(4) Tj
60.4432 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
20 0 obj
4358
endobj
18 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 11 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 19 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 5 5
22 0 obj
<<
/Length 23 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
3.52 Tw
0 Tc
(less permissible as a legitimate exercise of the state's sovereign) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.9 Tw
(powers." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Balt. Teachers) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 6 F.3d at 1015. In short, then, a claimant) Tj
0 -13 Td
.77 Tw
(must show \(1\) contractual impairment, \(2\) that is substantial, and \(3\)) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.12 Tw
(not a legitimate exercise of state power. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(City of Charleston v.) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.82 Tw
(Pub. Serv. Comm's of W. Va.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 57 F.3d 385, 391 \(4th Cir. 1995\)) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.39 Tw
(\("Only if there is a contract, which has been substantially impaired,) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.56 Tw
(and there is no legitimate public purpose justifying the impairment,) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(is there a violation of the Contract Clause."\). ) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
.17 Tw
(The Tribe contends that the imposition of an impact fee by the City) Tj
-12 -13 Td
2.32 Tw
(constituted an unconstitutional impairment of the obligation of the) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.01 Tw
(contract that was substantial and not a legitimate exercise of the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.56 Tw
(City's power.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( The City counters that the imposition of impact fees) Tj
0 -13 Td
.07 Tw
(did not impair the contracts, and even if it did, the imposition of water) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
2.41 Tw
(service fees and rates is a legitimate exercise of the City's police) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(power. The City's argument is persuasive. ) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
1.17 Tw
(There is no question that there existed contracts between the City) Tj
-12 -12.9 Td
.3 Tw
(and the Tribe, and that the Tribe fully performed its obligations under) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.1 Tw
(the contracts. The central issue in this case, however, is whether the) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.35 Tw
(contracts provided merely for the installation of water meters or for) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
3.87 Tw
(the installation of meters ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(and) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( the turning on of water services.) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
2.53 Tw
(Accordingly, the City argues that the impact fees imposed by the) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.43 Tw
(Ordinance did "not relate to any term or condition of the [contracts].") Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.62 Tw
(\(Appellee's Br. at 12.\) Under the City's reasoning, it fully performed) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.05 Tw
(the terms of the contracts and did nothing to impair that performance.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -26.8 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.21 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
2.11 Tw
("It is no longer open to question that municipal legislation passed) Tj
-10.5 -11.8 Td
.42 Tw
(under supposed legislative authority from the State is within the prohibi-) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
2.62 Tw
(tion of the Federal Constitution and void if it impairs [the Contract) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
1.05 Tw
(Clause]." ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Minnesota) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(, 208 U.S. 583, 590 \(1908\). ) Tj
10.5 -14.4 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.92 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
1.83 Tw
(Although the district court assumed without finding that the) Tj
-10.5 -11.8 Td
.29 Tw
(contract was impaired, we review judgments, not opinions. ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(E.g.) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(Califor-) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
.58 Tw
(nia v. Rooney) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(, 483 U.S. 307, 311 \(1987\). We are accordingly entitled to) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
.83 Tw
(affirm the district court on any ground that would support the judgment) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
.24 Tw
(in favor of the party prevailing below. ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(Blum v. Bacon) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(, 457 U.S. 132, 137) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
(n.5 \(1982\) \("It is well accepted . . . that without filing a cross-appeal . . .,) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
.54 Tw
(an appellee may rely upon any matter appearing in the record in support) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
1.05 Tw
(of the judgment below."\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -344.95 m 324 -344.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(5) Tj
-258.0568 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
4851
endobj
21 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 11 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 10 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 22 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 6 6
25 0 obj
<<
/Length 26 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
.81 Tw
0 Tc
(To answer whether the contracts were impaired, we must interpret) Tj
-12 -12 Td
.72 Tw
(the meaning of the contracts and the subsequent Ordinance, applying) Tj
0 -12 Td
3 Tw
(South Carolina law. South Carolina follows an objective contract) Tj
0 -12 Td
.69 Tw
(interpretation rule, meaning that if the language of a contract "is per-) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.78 Tw
(fectly plain and capable of legal construction, such language deter-) Tj
0 -12 Td
.57 Tw
(mines the force and effect of the instrument." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Blakeley v. Rabon) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 221) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.29 Tw
(S.E.2d 767, 769 \(S.C. 1976\). "Words cannot be read into a contract) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.25 Tw
(which impart intent wholly unexpressed when the contract was exe-) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.2 Tw
(cuted." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -24.6 Td
1.12 Tw
(The contracts' language leads to the conclusion that their purpose) Tj
-12 -12 Td
1.22 Tw
(was to establish \(1\) the necessary infrastructure to be constructed to) Tj
0 -12 Td
.8 Tw
(make the connection; \(2\) the sum to be paid for the construction; \(3\)) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.5 Tw
(the dedication of the infrastructure by the Tribe to the City; \(4\) the) Tj
0 -12 Td
.17 Tw
(sum to be paid for the installation of the meters; and \(5\) the allocation) Tj
0 -12 Td
.5 Tw
(of risk and warranty for the work. Thus, while the contracts specified) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(the sum to be paid for installation of the meters, they further stated) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.45 Tw
(that "[t]he water meters will be installed by the City, on request by) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.61 Tw
(the Developer, when water service is needed." \(J.A. at 26.\) For the) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(Tribe to prove an impairment, then, it must show that this language) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(also bound the City with respect to impact fees for initiating water) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
2.21 Tw
(service, as opposed to solely infrastructure, or capacity. The Tribe) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(fails to make this showing. ) Tj
12 -24.6 Td
.13 Tw
(In ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Martin v. Carolina Water Service, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 312 S.E.2d 556 \(S.C. Ct.) Tj
-12 -12.1 Td
.5 Tw
(App. 1984\), the state court addressed the question of whether a water) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
.05 Tw
(contract, which prohibited the imposition of any "connection" or "tap") Tj
0 -12.1 Td
.97 Tw
(fees, was violated upon the imposition of an "expansion and modifi-) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
3.16 Tw
(cation fee," which consisted of "a charge related to the costs of) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(increasing the size and volume of a water or sewer system and of) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
2.01 Tw
(making changes in either such system." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( at 559. The court con-) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
.18 Tw
(cluded that "nothing in the contract suggests that the term `connection) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(or tap-on fee' refers to anything but the cost of attaching a property) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
.65 Tw
(owner . . . to a water or sewer line," ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, and, therefore, such a provi-) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
.53 Tw
(sion "bears no relation to either expanding or modifying a utility sys-) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
3.98 Tw
(tem," ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Accordingly, the court held that the contract was not) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
.35 Tw
(violated because the expansion fees were "separate and distinct" from) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(the connection fees. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -24.7 Td
.63 Tw
(Martin) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( is analogous to the case here, where there existed contracts) Tj
-12 -12.1 Td
.96 Tw
(for the water infrastructure and attachment of the Tribe to the City's) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(6) Tj
60.4432 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
26 0 obj
4616
endobj
24 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 11 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 25 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 7 7
28 0 obj
<<
/Length 29 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.14 Tw
0 Tc
(system, combined with the Ordinance imposing impact fees for new) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
3.5 Tw
(service where such service would "create any new or additional) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.56 Tw
(demand on the City's water and/or wastewater systems." \(J.A. at 35.\)) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.47 Tw
(Also, the contracts at issue here do not expressly prohibit impact fees) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.26 Tw
( just as those in ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Martin) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( did not expressly prohibit modification fees) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
1.32 Tw
( leading to the inference that such fees were "not within the con-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.87 Tw
(templation of either party at the time of the contract." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Martin) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 312) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.08 Tw
(S.E.2d at 559 \(noting that the contract is silent on the question of) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(expansion or modification fees\). ) Tj
12 -25.1 Td
.8 Tw
(The Tribe, in fact, "does not dispute that it was required to have a) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
.98 Tw
(separate water and sewer service agreement," but argues instead that) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.18 Tw
(it had such an agreement, relying on the September 17, 1999 contract.) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.24 Tw
(\(Appellant's Br. at 11.\) The record, however, proves the insignifi-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.48 Tw
(cance of that agreement.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( That agreement was essentially a promise) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.45 Tw
(from the City to provide water services in the future so long as the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.1 Tw
(Tribe entered into a restrictive covenant for future annexation of the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.12 Tw
(Reservation. \(J.A. at 115 \("Owner acknowledges that a purpose of) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.99 Tw
(this Agreement is to ensure . . . Owner's full and complete coopera-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.88 Tw
(tion with any effort to annex the subject property."\).\) The agreement) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.82 Tw
(did not speak of specific services, infrastructure, or prices. Instead,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.55 Tw
(the plain object was to impose a restrictive covenant for as long as) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.62 Tw
(water service was provided. \(J.A. at 116 \(providing that the covenant) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
(shall be in effect until either the property is annexed in its entirety or) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.56 Tw
(the property is no longer being served by the city\).\) In fact, the Tribe) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.85 Tw
(concedes that it expected to pay the regular fee that the City charges) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.51 Tw
(for such services. But the natural extension of this argument is that) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.84 Tw
(nothing restricts a public utility from raising or otherwise varying its) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.17 Tw
(fees. That is what happened in this case. The City simply raised the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(fee for turning on the water service. ) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -25.6 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.11 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
1.06 Tw
(The Tribe also argues that the contract can be interpreted to suggest) Tj
-10.5 -11.3 Td
.33 Tw
(that "the Ordinance has no application to the water meters to be installed) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.7 Tw
(pursuant to it" because the meters cannot be considered "new" or "addi-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.57 Tw
(tional." \(Appellant's Br. at 21.\) This argument is irrelevant to \(and actu-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.73 Tw
(ally goes against\) the Tribe's Contract Clause claim. If the Ordinance) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.81 Tw
(cannot be enforced against the Tribe on its own terms, then of course it) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.59 Tw
(could not have impaired any existing contract with the Tribe. Moreover,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.47 Tw
(this claim was not raised below by the Tribe. The Tribe in seeking to) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.12 Tw
(raise this claim should have sought first a declaration that the Ordi-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.05 Tw
(nance was inapplicable to the Tribe's request for service. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -376.25 m 324 -376.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(7) Tj
-258.0568 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
29 0 obj
4776
endobj
27 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 10 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 28 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 8 8
32 0 obj
<<
/Length 33 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
.41 Tw
0 Tc
(Moreover, the annexation agreement explicitly contemplates future) Tj
-12 -12 Td
1.2 Tw
(agreements and fees in connection with service:) Tj
22 -24.5 Td
.84 Tw
(Any actions or statements by the City in relation to provid-) Tj
0 -12 Td
.44 Tw
(ing utilities services to the [Tribe], including but not limited) Tj
0 -12 Td
2.22 Tw
(to, the issuance of a letter of willingness and capacity to) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.2 Tw
(serve, the extension of a water or sewer main, or the com-) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.33 Tw
(mencement of service, is made subject to the terms of this) Tj
0 -12 Td
2.81 Tw
(Agreement and if this Agreement is breached by Owner) Tj
0 -12 Td
.1 Tw
(then all such actions or statements shall be null and void and) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.2 Tw
(no reliance by any entity may be placed thereon. ) Tj
0 -24.5 Td
.66 Tw
([The Tribe] agrees that any breach of conditions of any and) Tj
0 -12 Td
.33 Tw
(all agreements associated with utility service made in accor-) Tj
0 -12 Td
.69 Tw
(dance with this Agreement, shall be a breach of this Agree-) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.4 Tw
(ment. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to:) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12 Td
.46 Tw
(payment of applicable tap-on fees as fixed by the City Ordi-) Tj
0 -12 Td
.27 Tw
(nance; and payment to the City when due such water and/or) Tj
0 -12 Td
.73 Tw
(sewer charges or user fees as may be imposed from time to) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.2 Tw
(time) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
-22 -24.5 Td
(\(J.A. at 115 \(emphasis added\).) Tj
12 -24.5 Td
1.24 Tw
(In short, the 1999 agreement was not breached by the Ordinance,) Tj
-12 -12 Td
1.37 Tw
(and the existence of the agreement does nothing to help the Tribe's) Tj
0 -12 Td
.45 Tw
(argument. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(City of Charleston) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 57 F.3d at 394 \(holding in the sub-) Tj
0 -12 Td
3.02 Tw
(stantial impairment context that the "contracts themselves contain) Tj
0 -12 Td
.75 Tw
(express acknowledgments that the parties' rights were subject to leg-) Tj
0 -12 Td
2.45 Tw
(islative regulation [and] there was a long established precedent of) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.2 Tw
(extensive state regulation of public utilities"\). ) Tj
12 -24.5 Td
.28 Tw
(We therefore hold that the 2002 contracts were not impaired by the) Tj
-12 -12 Td
2.77 Tw
(issuance of the Ordinance, which did not directly contravene any) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(clause in the contracts. Accordingly, summary judgment was appro-) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(priate on the alternative ground that there was no impairment of the) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
(contracts.) Tj
154.8182 -24.5 Td
(III.) Tj
-142.8182 -24.6 Td
.28 Tw
(None of the contracts entered into by the parties prevented the City) Tj
-12 -12.1 Td
.58 Tw
(from imposing or changing fees unrelated to the actual installation of) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(8) Tj
60.4432 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
33 0 obj
3592
endobj
31 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 32 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 9 9
35 0 obj
<<
/Length 36 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
2.16 Tw
0 Tc
(meters or the laying of pipes. Because the fee in question did not) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.36 Tw
(affect either of these contractual obligations, the imposition of the fee) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.48 Tw
(did not impair the obligation of the contract between the City and the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.3 Tw
(Tribe. We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judg-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(ment to the City.) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
267.1555 -25.5 Td
(AFFIRMED) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9) Tj
-258.0568 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
36 0 obj
1194
endobj
34 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 35 0 R
>>
endobj
1 0 obj
[ /PDF /Text ]
endobj
37 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
38 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Bold
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 139.00
/StemH 69.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 676
/XHeight 461
/Ascent 676
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F1
/BaseFont /Times-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300
250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500
930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778
611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500
333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500
556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400
722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556
667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000
389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722
722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ]
/Encoding 37 0 R
/FontDescriptor 38 0 R
>>
endobj
39 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
40 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Roman
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 84.00
/StemH 42.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 662
/XHeight 450
/Ascent 683
/Descent -217
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F2
/BaseFont /Times-Roman
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300
250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444
921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722
556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500
333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500
500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400
667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611
444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556
611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ]
/Encoding 39 0 R
/FontDescriptor 40 0 R
>>
endobj
41 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 240 /apple ]
>>
endobj
42 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Symbol
/Flags 4
/FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 85.00
/StemH 42.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 0
/XHeight 0
/Ascent 0
/Descent 0
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F3
/BaseFont /Symbol
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444
549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722
768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500
500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549
549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603
400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658
823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713
768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603
494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494
790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ]
/Encoding 41 0 R
/FontDescriptor 42 0 R
>>
endobj
43 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
44 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Italic
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 76.00
/StemH 38.00
/ItalicAngle -15.50
/CapHeight 653
/XHeight 441
/Ascent 683
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F4
/BaseFont /Times-Italic
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300
250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500
920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722
611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500
333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500
500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400
667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611
611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611
500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500
611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ]
/Encoding 43 0 R
/FontDescriptor 44 0 R
>>
endobj
45 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
46 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Helvetica-Bold
/Flags 32
/FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 140.00
/StemH 70.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 718
/XHeight 532
/Ascent 718
/Descent -207
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F5
/BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278
278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333
278 333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278
556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611
975 722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778
667 778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556
278 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611
611 611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400
722 611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722
667 667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
556 333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611
667 556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611
611 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333
1000 722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000
278 1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722
722 889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ]
/Encoding 45 0 R
/FontDescriptor 46 0 R
>>
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Kids [3 0 R 12 0 R 15 0 R 18 0 R 21 0 R 24 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 47 0 R
>>
endobj
30 0 obj
<<
/Kids [27 0 R 31 0 R 34 0 R]
/Count 3
/Type /Pages
/Parent 47 0 R
>>
endobj
47 0 obj
<<
/Kids [11 0 R 30 0 R]
/Count 9
/Type /Pages
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 47 0 R
>>
endobj
48 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (Monday September 17, 2007 11:49:51)
/Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2)
/Producer (ECMP5)
>>
endobj
xref
0 49
0000000000 65535 f
0000036517 00000 n
0000049019 00000 n
0000003281 00000 n
0000000044 00000 n
0000003258 00000 n
0000037982 00000 n
0000040634 00000 n
0000042188 00000 n
0000044835 00000 n
0000047486 00000 n
0000048709 00000 n
0000007301 00000 n
0000003507 00000 n
0000007277 00000 n
0000011197 00000 n
0000007507 00000 n
0000011173 00000 n
0000015834 00000 n
0000011391 00000 n
0000015810 00000 n
0000020975 00000 n
0000016039 00000 n
0000020951 00000 n
0000025893 00000 n
0000021192 00000 n
0000025869 00000 n
0000030959 00000 n
0000026098 00000 n
0000030935 00000 n
0000048825 00000 n
0000034853 00000 n
0000031176 00000 n
0000034829 00000 n
0000036337 00000 n
0000035058 00000 n
0000036313 00000 n
0000036550 00000 n
0000037702 00000 n
0000039202 00000 n
0000040354 00000 n
0000041850 00000 n
0000041922 00000 n
0000043400 00000 n
0000044552 00000 n
0000046050 00000 n
0000047202 00000 n
0000048921 00000 n
0000049075 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 49
/Root 2 0 R
/Info 48 0 R
>>
startxref
49212
%%EOF
2 0 obj
<>
endobj
4 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
127.326 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(PUBLISHED) Tj
/F1 20 Tf 85 Tz
-124.106 -30.4 Td
2 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
75.476 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
(FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-78.696 -18 Td
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
2.02 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUTH) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
84.8635 -12.5 Td
(Plaintiff-Appellant,) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
146.4702 -11.7 Td
(No. 05-2050) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-49.7137 -1.4 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-98.9325 -4.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(v.) Tj
-82.6875 -18 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, South Carolina,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
79.148 -12.5 Td
(Defendant-Appellee.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
102.472 -8.5 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-126.3923 -25.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj
-6.6337 -12.7 Td
(for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.) Tj
11.6747 -12.7 Td
(Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.) Tj
51.2635 -12.7 Td
(\(CA-04-22374-CMC\)) Tj
-11.6957 -25.8 Td
(Argued: October 25, 2006) Tj
-7.9868 -25.3 Td
(Decided: September 20, 2007) Tj
-84.648 -25.8 Td
(Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, TRAXLER, Circuit Judge, and) Tj
73.2338 -12.7 Td
(WIDENER, Senior Circuit Judge.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-80.4355 -51 Td
1.2 Tw
(Affirmed by published per curiam opinion. ) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
134.2045 -43.9 Td
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-134.2045 -25.7 Td
3.2 Tw
(ARGUED:) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Jerry Jay Bender, BAKER, RAVENEL & BENDER,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.52 Tw
(L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Mark White,) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -26.2 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.11 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
.1 Tw
(Judge Widener heard oral argument in this case but did not participate) Tj
-10.5 -11.6 Td
1.03 Tw
(in the decision. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.05 Tw
(to 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.05 Tw
(46\(d\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -74.35 m 183.8 -74.35 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -117.3 m 186.6 -82.2 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -169.4 m 186.6 -134.3 l s
.9 w 0 -176.35 m 183.3 -176.35 l s
.5 w 0 -355.35 m 324 -355.35 l s
.5 w 0 -406.25 m 324 -406.25 l s
.5 w 0 -475.45 m 324 -475.45 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.24 Tw
0 Tc
(SPENCER & SPENCER, P.A., Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appel-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.96 Tw
(lee. ) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(ON BRIEF:) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( W. Chaplin Spencer, Jr., SPENCER & SPENCER,) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(P.A., Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellee. ) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
136.7632 -43.7 Td
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-136.7632 -25.5 Td
(PER CURIAM: ) Tj
12 -25.5 Td
1.68 Tw
(Appellant Catawba Indian Tribe \(the Tribe\) filed suit against the) Tj
-12 -12.6 Td
2.27 Tw
(City of Rock Hill \(the City\), alleging that a recently enacted City) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.77 Tw
(Ordinance impaired contracts previously entered into by the parties) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.72 Tw
(for the construction of water infrastructure to serve the Tribe's reser-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.92 Tw
(vation. Because the Ordinance did not impair the contracts entered) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.22 Tw
(into between the Tribe and the City, we conclude that the Contracts) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(Clause of the United States Constitution was not violated.) Tj
158.6477 -25.5 Td
(I.) Tj
-146.6477 -25.5 Td
2.26 Tw
(In 1999, the parties entered into a "WATER AND/OR SEWER) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
6.1 Tw
(SERVICE AGREEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.") Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.34 Tw
(\(J.A. at 114.\)) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( The agreement was essentially a promise from the City) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.6 Tw
(to provide water services in the future so long as the Tribe entered) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.64 Tw
(into a restrictive covenant for future annexation of the Reservation.) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.63 Tw
(\(J.A. at 115 \("Owner acknowledges that a purpose of this Agreement) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
0 Tw
(is to ensure . . . Owner's full and complete cooperation with any effort) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(to annex the subject property."\).\) ) Tj
12 -25.5 Td
2.57 Tw
(Approximately three years later, during the summer and fall of) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
.3 Tw
(2002, the Tribe entered into four separate Extension Agreements with) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.78 Tw
(the City for the construction of water mains and sewer facilities to) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
3.13 Tw
(serve the Tribe's reservation, which is located outside the City's) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.84 Tw
(municipal limits. Under the contracts, the Tribe agreed to pay a total) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.28 Tw
(of $260,464.00 for the construction of sewer mains and accessories,) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.64 Tw
($125,934.00 for the construction of water mains and accessories, and) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.57 Tw
($3,630.00 for the installation of sixty-six water meters. Clause 4 of) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -26 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.35 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
1.28 Tw
(Citations to the J.A. refer to the Joint Appendix filed by the parties) Tj
-10.5 -11.5 Td
1.05 Tw
(to this appeal. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -58.05 m 324 -58.05 l s
.5 w 0 -466.25 m 324 -466.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(2) Tj
60.4432 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.68 Tw
0 Tc
(the contracts concerned the amount to be paid for water meter instal-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.83 Tw
(lations, with each water meter costing $55.00. Clause 4 also stated) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.45 Tw
(that "[t]he water meters will be installed by the City, on request by) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.45 Tw
(the Developer, when water service is needed." \(J.A. at 26.\) The Tribe) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.35 Tw
(quickly made all payments and fully performed under the contracts,) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(although it did not immediately request service. ) Tj
12 -27.6 Td
.15 Tw
(On March 17, 2003, the City adopted an Ordinance imposing water) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.23 Tw
(and wastewater impact fees "for all water and/or wastewater service) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.11 Tw
(requests," including requests for "new service, water and/or waste-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.08 Tw
(water extension requests and agreements, additional meters, or) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.67 Tw
(upgrades of existing services that will create any new or additional) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.56 Tw
(demand on the City's water and/or wastewater systems." \(J.A. at 35.\)) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.92 Tw
(Although it adopted the Ordinance on March 17, the City gave all) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.29 Tw
(interested parties until June 30, 2003 to request service without impo-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(sition of impact fees. ) Tj
12 -27.6 Td
2.32 Tw
(The Tribe did not request service and installation of the meters) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.55 Tw
(until August 2003. At that time, the City imposed an impact fee of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.96 Tw
($100,478.00 in connection with the water meter and service installa-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.48 Tw
(tion. The Tribe paid the sum under protest and initiated this action,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.74 Tw
(complaining that the City's imposition of additional fees violated the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution. ) Tj
12 -27.6 Td
.68 Tw
(Both the Tribe and the City agreed that the case was ripe for sum-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.08 Tw
(mary judgment in the district court and filed cross motions for sum-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.95 Tw
(mary judgment. On August 22, 2005, the district court granted the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.98 Tw
(City's motion and denied the Tribe's motion. Although the district) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.57 Tw
(court assumed, arguendo, that the contracts were impaired, it found) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.06 Tw
(that there was no "substantial" impairment. Alternatively, even if) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.42 Tw
(there was substantial impairment, the district court found that any) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.75 Tw
(such impairment was reasonable and necessary to serve an important) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(public purpose. ) Tj
12 -27.5 Td
2.22 Tw
(The Tribe timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(U.S.C.A. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1291 \(West 2006\).) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(3) Tj
-258.0568 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
19 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
156.733 -8 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(II.) Tj
-.322 -25.2 Td
(A.) Tj
-144.411 -25.2 Td
.47 Tw
(We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
1.89 Tw
(in favor of the City, applying the same standard as did the district) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.81 Tw
(court. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Laber v. Harvey) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 438 F.3d 404, 415 \(4th Cir. 2006\) \(en) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.93 Tw
(banc\). Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depo-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.12 Tw
(sitions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.35 Tw
(with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.59 Tw
(any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.15 Tw
(a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56\(c\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(also ) Tj
(Celotex Corp. v.) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.77 Tw
(Catrett) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 477 U.S. 317, 324 \(1986\). We must construe the facts in the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.63 Tw
(light most favorable to the Tribe, and we may not make credibility) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.15 Tw
(determinations or weigh the evidence. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.75 Tw
(Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 477 U.S. 242, 255 \(1986\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Edell & Assocs., P.C. v. Law Offices) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(of Peter G. Angelos) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 264 F.3d 424, 435 \(4th Cir. 2001\). ) Tj
156.7272 -25.2 Td
(B.) Tj
-144.7272 -25.2 Td
1 Tw
(The Contract Clause states that "[n]o State shall . . . pass any . . .) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
1.08 Tw
(Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." U.S. Const. art. I, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.08 Tw
(10,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.4 Tw
(cl. 1. Although the Clause is phrased in absolute terms, it is not inter-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.51 Tw
(preted "absolutely to prohibit the impairment of either government or) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.4 Tw
(private contracts." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Balt. Teachers Union v. Mayor and City Council) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.91 Tw
(of Balt.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 6 F.3d 1012, 1014 \(4th Cir. 1993\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Home Bldg. & Loan) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.56 Tw
(Ass'n v. Blaisdell) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 290 U.S. 398, 428 \(1934\) \(holding that "the prohi-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.05 Tw
(bition is not an absolute one and is not to be read with literal exact-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(ness like a mathematical formula."\). ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
1.41 Tw
(The Supreme Court has formulated a three-part analysis to deter-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.59 Tw
(mine if the Contract Clause has been violated. First, a court must ask) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.15 Tw
(whether there has been an impairment of a contract. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(U. S. Trust) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.65 Tw
(Co. v. New Jersey) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 431 U.S. 1, 17 \(1977\) \(holding that "as a prelimi-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1 Tw
(nary matter, [a] claim requires a determination that the [state action]) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.56 Tw
(has the effect of impairing a contractual obligation"\). Second, a court) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.62 Tw
(must ask "whether the state law has, in fact, operated as a substantial) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.93 Tw
(impairment of a contractual relationship." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Allied Structural Steel Co.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.1 Tw
(v. Spannaus) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 438 U.S. 234, 244 \(1978\). Third, if the court finds a sub-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.54 Tw
(stantial impairment, it must ask "whether that impairment is nonethe-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(4) Tj
60.4432 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
22 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
3.52 Tw
0 Tc
(less permissible as a legitimate exercise of the state's sovereign) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.9 Tw
(powers." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Balt. Teachers) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 6 F.3d at 1015. In short, then, a claimant) Tj
0 -13 Td
.77 Tw
(must show \(1\) contractual impairment, \(2\) that is substantial, and \(3\)) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.12 Tw
(not a legitimate exercise of state power. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(City of Charleston v.) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.82 Tw
(Pub. Serv. Comm's of W. Va.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 57 F.3d 385, 391 \(4th Cir. 1995\)) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.39 Tw
(\("Only if there is a contract, which has been substantially impaired,) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.56 Tw
(and there is no legitimate public purpose justifying the impairment,) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(is there a violation of the Contract Clause."\). ) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
.17 Tw
(The Tribe contends that the imposition of an impact fee by the City) Tj
-12 -13 Td
2.32 Tw
(constituted an unconstitutional impairment of the obligation of the) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.01 Tw
(contract that was substantial and not a legitimate exercise of the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.56 Tw
(City's power.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( The City counters that the imposition of impact fees) Tj
0 -13 Td
.07 Tw
(did not impair the contracts, and even if it did, the imposition of water) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
2.41 Tw
(service fees and rates is a legitimate exercise of the City's police) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(power. The City's argument is persuasive. ) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
1.17 Tw
(There is no question that there existed contracts between the City) Tj
-12 -12.9 Td
.3 Tw
(and the Tribe, and that the Tribe fully performed its obligations under) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.1 Tw
(the contracts. The central issue in this case, however, is whether the) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.35 Tw
(contracts provided merely for the installation of water meters or for) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
3.87 Tw
(the installation of meters ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(and) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( the turning on of water services.) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
2.53 Tw
(Accordingly, the City argues that the impact fees imposed by the) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.43 Tw
(Ordinance did "not relate to any term or condition of the [contracts].") Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.62 Tw
(\(Appellee's Br. at 12.\) Under the City's reasoning, it fully performed) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.05 Tw
(the terms of the contracts and did nothing to impair that performance.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -26.8 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.21 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
2.11 Tw
("It is no longer open to question that municipal legislation passed) Tj
-10.5 -11.8 Td
.42 Tw
(under supposed legislative authority from the State is within the prohibi-) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
2.62 Tw
(tion of the Federal Constitution and void if it impairs [the Contract) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
1.05 Tw
(Clause]." ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Minnesota) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(, 208 U.S. 583, 590 \(1908\). ) Tj
10.5 -14.4 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.92 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
1.83 Tw
(Although the district court assumed without finding that the) Tj
-10.5 -11.8 Td
.29 Tw
(contract was impaired, we review judgments, not opinions. ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(E.g.) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(Califor-) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
.58 Tw
(nia v. Rooney) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(, 483 U.S. 307, 311 \(1987\). We are accordingly entitled to) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
.83 Tw
(affirm the district court on any ground that would support the judgment) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
.24 Tw
(in favor of the party prevailing below. ) Tj
/F4 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(Blum v. Bacon) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
(, 457 U.S. 132, 137) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
(n.5 \(1982\) \("It is well accepted . . . that without filing a cross-appeal . . .,) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
.54 Tw
(an appellee may rely upon any matter appearing in the record in support) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
1.05 Tw
(of the judgment below."\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -344.95 m 324 -344.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(5) Tj
-258.0568 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
.81 Tw
0 Tc
(To answer whether the contracts were impaired, we must interpret) Tj
-12 -12 Td
.72 Tw
(the meaning of the contracts and the subsequent Ordinance, applying) Tj
0 -12 Td
3 Tw
(South Carolina law. South Carolina follows an objective contract) Tj
0 -12 Td
.69 Tw
(interpretation rule, meaning that if the language of a contract "is per-) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.78 Tw
(fectly plain and capable of legal construction, such language deter-) Tj
0 -12 Td
.57 Tw
(mines the force and effect of the instrument." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Blakeley v. Rabon) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 221) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.29 Tw
(S.E.2d 767, 769 \(S.C. 1976\). "Words cannot be read into a contract) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.25 Tw
(which impart intent wholly unexpressed when the contract was exe-) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.2 Tw
(cuted." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -24.6 Td
1.12 Tw
(The contracts' language leads to the conclusion that their purpose) Tj
-12 -12 Td
1.22 Tw
(was to establish \(1\) the necessary infrastructure to be constructed to) Tj
0 -12 Td
.8 Tw
(make the connection; \(2\) the sum to be paid for the construction; \(3\)) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.5 Tw
(the dedication of the infrastructure by the Tribe to the City; \(4\) the) Tj
0 -12 Td
.17 Tw
(sum to be paid for the installation of the meters; and \(5\) the allocation) Tj
0 -12 Td
.5 Tw
(of risk and warranty for the work. Thus, while the contracts specified) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(the sum to be paid for installation of the meters, they further stated) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.45 Tw
(that "[t]he water meters will be installed by the City, on request by) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.61 Tw
(the Developer, when water service is needed." \(J.A. at 26.\) For the) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(Tribe to prove an impairment, then, it must show that this language) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(also bound the City with respect to impact fees for initiating water) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
2.21 Tw
(service, as opposed to solely infrastructure, or capacity. The Tribe) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(fails to make this showing. ) Tj
12 -24.6 Td
.13 Tw
(In ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Martin v. Carolina Water Service, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 312 S.E.2d 556 \(S.C. Ct.) Tj
-12 -12.1 Td
.5 Tw
(App. 1984\), the state court addressed the question of whether a water) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
.05 Tw
(contract, which prohibited the imposition of any "connection" or "tap") Tj
0 -12.1 Td
.97 Tw
(fees, was violated upon the imposition of an "expansion and modifi-) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
3.16 Tw
(cation fee," which consisted of "a charge related to the costs of) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(increasing the size and volume of a water or sewer system and of) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
2.01 Tw
(making changes in either such system." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( at 559. The court con-) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
.18 Tw
(cluded that "nothing in the contract suggests that the term `connection) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(or tap-on fee' refers to anything but the cost of attaching a property) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
.65 Tw
(owner . . . to a water or sewer line," ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, and, therefore, such a provi-) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
.53 Tw
(sion "bears no relation to either expanding or modifying a utility sys-) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
3.98 Tw
(tem," ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Accordingly, the court held that the contract was not) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
.35 Tw
(violated because the expansion fees were "separate and distinct" from) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(the connection fees. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -24.7 Td
.63 Tw
(Martin) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( is analogous to the case here, where there existed contracts) Tj
-12 -12.1 Td
.96 Tw
(for the water infrastructure and attachment of the Tribe to the City's) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(6) Tj
60.4432 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.14 Tw
0 Tc
(system, combined with the Ordinance imposing impact fees for new) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
3.5 Tw
(service where such service would "create any new or additional) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.56 Tw
(demand on the City's water and/or wastewater systems." \(J.A. at 35.\)) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.47 Tw
(Also, the contracts at issue here do not expressly prohibit impact fees) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.26 Tw
( just as those in ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Martin) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( did not expressly prohibit modification fees) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
1.32 Tw
( leading to the inference that such fees were "not within the con-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.87 Tw
(templation of either party at the time of the contract." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Martin) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 312) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.08 Tw
(S.E.2d at 559 \(noting that the contract is silent on the question of) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(expansion or modification fees\). ) Tj
12 -25.1 Td
.8 Tw
(The Tribe, in fact, "does not dispute that it was required to have a) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
.98 Tw
(separate water and sewer service agreement," but argues instead that) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.18 Tw
(it had such an agreement, relying on the September 17, 1999 contract.) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.24 Tw
(\(Appellant's Br. at 11.\) The record, however, proves the insignifi-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.48 Tw
(cance of that agreement.) Tj
4.7 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( That agreement was essentially a promise) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.45 Tw
(from the City to provide water services in the future so long as the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.1 Tw
(Tribe entered into a restrictive covenant for future annexation of the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.12 Tw
(Reservation. \(J.A. at 115 \("Owner acknowledges that a purpose of) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.99 Tw
(this Agreement is to ensure . . . Owner's full and complete coopera-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.88 Tw
(tion with any effort to annex the subject property."\).\) The agreement) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.82 Tw
(did not speak of specific services, infrastructure, or prices. Instead,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.55 Tw
(the plain object was to impose a restrictive covenant for as long as) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.62 Tw
(water service was provided. \(J.A. at 116 \(providing that the covenant) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
(shall be in effect until either the property is annexed in its entirety or) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.56 Tw
(the property is no longer being served by the city\).\) In fact, the Tribe) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.85 Tw
(concedes that it expected to pay the regular fee that the City charges) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.51 Tw
(for such services. But the natural extension of this argument is that) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.84 Tw
(nothing restricts a public utility from raising or otherwise varying its) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.17 Tw
(fees. That is what happened in this case. The City simply raised the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(fee for turning on the water service. ) Tj
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
10.5 -25.6 Td
4.3 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.11 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10.5 Tf 104.7 Tz
1.06 Tw
(The Tribe also argues that the contract can be interpreted to suggest) Tj
-10.5 -11.3 Td
.33 Tw
(that "the Ordinance has no application to the water meters to be installed) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.7 Tw
(pursuant to it" because the meters cannot be considered "new" or "addi-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.57 Tw
(tional." \(Appellant's Br. at 21.\) This argument is irrelevant to \(and actu-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.73 Tw
(ally goes against\) the Tribe's Contract Clause claim. If the Ordinance) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.81 Tw
(cannot be enforced against the Tribe on its own terms, then of course it) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.59 Tw
(could not have impaired any existing contract with the Tribe. Moreover,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.47 Tw
(this claim was not raised below by the Tribe. The Tribe in seeking to) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.12 Tw
(raise this claim should have sought first a declaration that the Ordi-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.05 Tw
(nance was inapplicable to the Tribe's request for service. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -376.25 m 324 -376.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(7) Tj
-258.0568 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
32 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
.41 Tw
0 Tc
(Moreover, the annexation agreement explicitly contemplates future) Tj
-12 -12 Td
1.2 Tw
(agreements and fees in connection with service:) Tj
22 -24.5 Td
.84 Tw
(Any actions or statements by the City in relation to provid-) Tj
0 -12 Td
.44 Tw
(ing utilities services to the [Tribe], including but not limited) Tj
0 -12 Td
2.22 Tw
(to, the issuance of a letter of willingness and capacity to) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.2 Tw
(serve, the extension of a water or sewer main, or the com-) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.33 Tw
(mencement of service, is made subject to the terms of this) Tj
0 -12 Td
2.81 Tw
(Agreement and if this Agreement is breached by Owner) Tj
0 -12 Td
.1 Tw
(then all such actions or statements shall be null and void and) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.2 Tw
(no reliance by any entity may be placed thereon. ) Tj
0 -24.5 Td
.66 Tw
([The Tribe] agrees that any breach of conditions of any and) Tj
0 -12 Td
.33 Tw
(all agreements associated with utility service made in accor-) Tj
0 -12 Td
.69 Tw
(dance with this Agreement, shall be a breach of this Agree-) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.4 Tw
(ment. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to:) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12 Td
.46 Tw
(payment of applicable tap-on fees as fixed by the City Ordi-) Tj
0 -12 Td
.27 Tw
(nance; and payment to the City when due such water and/or) Tj
0 -12 Td
.73 Tw
(sewer charges or user fees as may be imposed from time to) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.2 Tw
(time) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
-22 -24.5 Td
(\(J.A. at 115 \(emphasis added\).) Tj
12 -24.5 Td
1.24 Tw
(In short, the 1999 agreement was not breached by the Ordinance,) Tj
-12 -12 Td
1.37 Tw
(and the existence of the agreement does nothing to help the Tribe's) Tj
0 -12 Td
.45 Tw
(argument. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(City of Charleston) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 57 F.3d at 394 \(holding in the sub-) Tj
0 -12 Td
3.02 Tw
(stantial impairment context that the "contracts themselves contain) Tj
0 -12 Td
.75 Tw
(express acknowledgments that the parties' rights were subject to leg-) Tj
0 -12 Td
2.45 Tw
(islative regulation [and] there was a long established precedent of) Tj
0 -12 Td
1.2 Tw
(extensive state regulation of public utilities"\). ) Tj
12 -24.5 Td
.28 Tw
(We therefore hold that the 2002 contracts were not impaired by the) Tj
-12 -12 Td
2.77 Tw
(issuance of the Ordinance, which did not directly contravene any) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(clause in the contracts. Accordingly, summary judgment was appro-) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(priate on the alternative ground that there was no impairment of the) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
(contracts.) Tj
154.8182 -24.5 Td
(III.) Tj
-142.8182 -24.6 Td
.28 Tw
(None of the contracts entered into by the parties prevented the City) Tj
-12 -12.1 Td
.58 Tw
(from imposing or changing fees unrelated to the actual installation of) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(8) Tj
60.4432 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
35 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
2.16 Tw
0 Tc
(meters or the laying of pipes. Because the fee in question did not) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.36 Tw
(affect either of these contractual obligations, the imposition of the fee) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.48 Tw
(did not impair the obligation of the contract between the City and the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.3 Tw
(Tribe. We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judg-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(ment to the City.) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
267.1555 -25.5 Td
(AFFIRMED) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9) Tj
-258.0568 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAWBA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDIAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITY OF) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
49 0 obj
<>
endobj
50 0 obj
<>stream
Monday September 17, 2007 11:49:51
ECMP5
VERSACOMP R05.2
2008-01-29T13:02:33-07:00
2008-01-29T13:02:33-07:00
2008-01-29T13:02:33-07:00
application/pdf
Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina v. City of Rock Hill (Appeal)
uuid:0e3dd22b-ebfb-4f2c-b930-60f6bf9159e0
uuid:0f6f133e-cc09-4fd4-b5a5-18cad648f98f
endstream
endobj
xref
2 1
0000050283 00000 n
4 1
0000050345 00000 n
13 1
0000053551 00000 n
16 1
0000057312 00000 n
19 1
0000060969 00000 n
22 1
0000065379 00000 n
25 1
0000070282 00000 n
28 1
0000074950 00000 n
32 1
0000079778 00000 n
35 1
0000083422 00000 n
49 2
0000084668 00000 n
0000084945 00000 n
trailer
<]/Prev 49212 >>
startxref
88720
%%EOF
50 0 obj
<>stream
Monday September 17, 2007 11:49:51
ECMP5
VERSACOMP R05.2
2008-05-13T14:49:30-06:00
2008-01-29T13:02:33-07:00
2008-05-13T14:49:30-06:00
application/pdf
Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina v. City of Rock Hill
uuid:0e3dd22b-ebfb-4f2c-b930-60f6bf9159e0
uuid:b3caa507-d58b-4480-852a-a2205e923fc9
endstream
endobj
51 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
50 2
0000089186 00000 n
0000092952 00000 n
trailer
<<121791049C968841A931D32D0E144F4C>]/Prev 88720 >>
startxref
93218
%%EOF