This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In front of P's house, next to a public street, once stood a 40-year-old sweetgum tree. The tree was on D's property. D told P that the tree was decayed and dying. D planned to remove the tree and would replace the old tree with a new one. P asked for a hearing to contest the tree's removal. P claimed that the tree was just fine and that D had no basis for taking it down. The Tree Commission denied P's appeal. D wrote P saying it would remove the tree. P filed a complaint in state court, claiming that the tree cutting would violate his rights under the substantive due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment and under a D ordinance. He asked for a temporary restraining order, which the state court granted. D removed the action to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction. The court rejected P's federal claim on the merits and opted not to resolve the state claim. The court also rejected P's request for a preliminary injunction. The court entered a final judgment dismissing the case. That same day, P's lawyer told D it would refile the complaint in state court no later than Friday, October 31. The next morning, D cut the tree down. P moved for reconsideration in the district court and for a finding that D was in contempt of court. The court denied the motion for reconsideration. Under its inherent power, the court granted the contempt motion, finding that d 'intentionally destroyed the Tree the preservation of which was the subject of the litigation,' and that D's actions foreclosed the possibility of meaningful review by any court. The court ordered F to replace the tree with 'one of comparable genus' and to pay the attorney's fees incurred by P in filing the contempt motion. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.