Where plaintiff argued that §3(c) of Act 257, [L 1997, (§486H-10.4(c))] ("Act 257") effected a regulatory taking because it failed to substantially advance a legitimate state interest, district court erred in granting summary judgment because resolution of factual issues was necessary to determine whether Act 257 substantially advanced, or bore a reasonable relationship to, State's interest in lowering gasoline prices; summary judgment inappropriate on other two grounds urged by plaintiff. 224 F.3d 1030.