(plaintiffs co-own 37-acre tract on north edge of defendant city, a popular tourist destination, and entered into conditional sale agreement with Wal-Mart under which Wal-Mart would buy 23.5 acres of the tract for $2,943,750; seven months later, conditional sale agreement amended to provide that Wal-Mart was purchasing entire tract for $4 million; after agreement entered into, defendant enacted ordinance restricting size of any new buildings on tract to maximum of 65,000 square feet; Wal-Mart subsequently terminated conditional sale agreement; plaintiffs sued for damages on basis that ordinance unconstitutionally violated Equal Protection Clause; trial court jury ruled for plaintiffs and awarded damages of $3.6 million; on appeal, court determined that genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether similarly situated properties in city were treated differently under same zoning ordinance and as to whether ordinance lacked rational basis; thus, trial court correct in denying defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial or remittur on these issues; court also determined that no evidence existed showing that ordinance enacted due to animosity against plaintiffs; consequently, trial court should have granted defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on animus liability theory; trial court judgment vacated and case remanded for new trial).