Plaintiffs, a non-profit and concerned local citizens, opposed to the prospective development of a quarry and asphalt plant, challenged the heavy industrial zoning classification of a portion of the property on the basis that it was arbitrary and capricious, constituted illegal contract zoning, and, constituted illegal spot zoning.
The trial court found that Clinton had ample rational basis to render the zoning classifications of the property that it did and the appeals court affirmed. After a very interesting discussion of the issue, the appeals court determined that this was not an instance of contract zoning, or spot zoning.