the plaintiff of substantial property rights in violation of the Due Process Clause). These cases conclusively recognize a municipality’s authority to declare fireworks a public nuisance. Given this backdrop, the Court holds that Ordinance No. 99-26 amounts to a valid and reasonable exercise of League City’s general police power. Other jurisdictions have upheld similar ordinances, finding that fireworks bans are reasonably necessary to serve the public interest without being unduly oppressive to due process rights. See, e.g., Treadgill v. State, 160 Tex.Crim. 658, 275 S.W.2d, 658, 664 (1954) (acknowledging that the sale of fireworks may be prohibited by a municipality in the exercise of its police power); Dixie Fireworks Co. v. McArthur, 218 Ga. 735, 130 S.E.2d 731, 732-33 (1963) (<HOLDING>); Hutchinson v. Board of Alderman, 423 So.2d
holding that the seizure of fireworks pursuant to a state fireworks law did not violate the plaintiffs property rights under the due process clause of the united states constitution holding that because the due process clause in the federal constitution is applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment the right is also guaranteed to defendants pursuant to the identical provision in article i section 5 of the hawaii constitution holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution holding that the constitutional rights in a termination proceeding  are derived from the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution and not the sixth amendment