Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 23-1351

Opinion Date: January 23, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a lower court's decision that an ordinance enacted by Anne Arundel County, Maryland, which required gun retailers to distribute literature relating to gun safety, suicide prevention, mental health, and conflict resolution to customers, did not violate the First Amendment rights of the gun dealers. The plaintiffs, a group of gun dealers and a corporation dedicated to the preservation and advancement of gun owners' rights, argued that the ordinance compelled them to speak on these subjects against their will. The court found that the requirement to distribute the literature constituted commercial speech, which can be regulated under the First Amendment, as long as it is factual, uncontroversial, and not unduly burdensome. The court concluded that the literature was factual and uncontroversial because it did not suggest that firearms cause suicide, but merely identified access to firearms as a risk factor for suicide. Further, the court found that the requirement to distribute the literature was not unduly burdensome and was reasonably related to the County's interest in preventing suicide.

United States v. Everett

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 22-4536

Opinion Date: January 23, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In the case brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the defendant, Reshod Jamar Everett, appealed his multiple convictions and sentences for six drug distribution and firearms offenses. The charges arose from his involvement in extensive criminal activities related to drugs and firearms in Cumberland County, North Carolina. Everett unsuccessfully moved to suppress evidence seized from his residence, claiming that the authorities violated the "protective sweep" exception to the Fourth Amendment's search warrant mandate. He was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 480 months in prison, plus supervised release.

On appeal, Everett challenged the denial of his suppression motion, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting three of his convictions, and his 480-month prison sentence. The Court of Appeals rejected each of Everett's contentions and affirmed the lower court's decision. It found that the protective sweep of Everett's residence was justified due to the circumstances, including the fact that Everett was a substantial drug dealer with a known connection to firearms. The Court also held that there was substantial evidence to support Everett's convictions, even under a plain error review. Finally, it concluded that Everett's 480-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable, given the seriousness of his offenses, his conduct between the time of the offenses and sentencing, and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

US v. Curtis Davis

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: WALKER

Opinion Date: January 25, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the defendant, Curtis Davis, had been arrested and charged with drug and firearm offenses after law enforcement officers executing a search warrant observed him attempting to place baggies of controlled substances into an air vent. More baggies of controlled substances, firearms, cash, cell phones, and additional controlled substances were found in the residence. The district court denied Davis's motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit upheld the district court's decision. The court found that the search warrant was valid at least as to evidence of firearms offenses. The controlled substances found on Davis's person and in his bedroom were lawfully seized either incident to Davis's arrest or because they were in plain view of the officers conducting the search. Furthermore, Davis's cell phone was lawfully seized as an instrumentality of drug trafficking found in plain view. The court emphasized that for a cell phone to be seized in plain view, the "additional evidence or indicators" of criminality have significant work to do to establish probable cause. In this case, Davis's phone was found in the residence along with substantial quantities of controlled substances that were packaged for distribution, cash, firearms, and ammunition, all found on Davis's person or in his bedroom. This evidence provided law enforcement with sufficient probable cause to seize Davis's cell phone. The judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Barnes v. Felix

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 22-20519

Opinion Date: January 23, 2024

Judge: Higginbotham

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the parents of Ashtian Barnes, who was fatally shot by Officer Roberto Felix, Jr. during a lawful traffic stop, alleged violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Felix and Harris County. The parents argued that Officer Felix's use of force was unreasonable because even if Barnes attempted to flee, he did not pose a threat justifying deadly force. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgement, stating that Officer Felix did not violate Barnes's constitutional rights and was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court found that Barnes posed a threat of serious harm to Officer Felix in the moment the car began to move, thus making Officer Felix's use of deadly force reasonable and not excessive. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that under the Circuit's precedent on the "moment of threat" analysis, there was no violation of Barnes's constitutional rights. Consequently, the court also affirmed the grant of summary judgement to Harris County, as there was no finding of constitutional injury.

Snitko v. United States

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-56050

Opinion Date: January 23, 2024

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a judgment from the United States District Court for the Central District of California regarding the FBI's "inventory" of 700 safe deposit boxes at US Private Vaults (USPV). The USPV was under investigation for various criminal activities. The FBI seized the boxes and their contents under a warrant that expressly did not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the box contents. After a trial based on written submissions, the district court ruled in favor of the government, holding that the government's "inventory" of the safe deposit boxes was a constitutionally valid inventory search. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, stating that the inventory search doctrine did not apply because one of the key features of the doctrine is the existence of standardized instructions which limit the discretion of officers and apply consistently across cases. The court found that the FBI had supplemented its standardized instructions with additional instructions specifically designed for the USPV raid, which took the case out of the realm of a standardized "inventory" procedure. The Ninth Circuit also held that the government exceeded the scope of the warrant, which did not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safe deposit boxes. The case was remanded for the FBI to sequester or destroy the records of its inventory search pertaining to the class members.

United States v. Dawson

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 22-8064

Opinion Date: January 22, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit analyzed whether a police officer violated the Fourth Amendment by prolonging a traffic stop to determine whether the driver of a rental vehicle was authorized to drive it. The driver, Jerry Dawson, was pulled over for speeding, and during the stop, the officer discovered marijuana and two pounds of methamphetamine in the vehicle. Dawson argued that the officer had no reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity and therefore had no authority to detain him beyond the time necessary to issue the speeding ticket.

The court held that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment because checking a rental agreement is an ordinary inquiry incident to a traffic stop. The court found that this inquiry is part of an officer's mission during a traffic stop and does not constitute an "unrelated investigation." Therefore, the officer was justified in continuing to detain Dawson to determine whether he was authorized to drive the rental car.

Dawson also appealed his 70-month imprisonment sentence, arguing that the district court erred in concluding it could not adjust his sentence to account for his pretrial time served for a relevant offense. The court dismissed Dawson's appeal of his sentence, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review a discretionary refusal to depart from the sentencing guidelines.

People v. Helzer

Court: Supreme Court of California

Docket: S132256

Opinion Date: January 22, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In the Supreme Court of California, the defendant, Glen Taylor Helzer, pleaded guilty to five counts of murder and multiple other charges, including robbery, kidnapping, and conspiracy. After a penalty trial, the jury sentenced him to death for the five counts of murder. The murders were particularly gruesome, involving kidnapping, robbery, and dismemberment of the bodies. The defendant argued that he was under the influence of methamphetamine and suffering from a mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the crimes. On appeal, the defendant raised several issues, including the exclusion of a potential juror due to their views on the death penalty, the denial of a proposed question during jury selection, and the admission of graphic evidence including photographs of the dismembered bodies and the sound of a power saw used in the dismemberment during the prosecution's closing argument. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings and that any error was harmless. The court held that the photographs and the sound of the saw were relevant to the circumstances of the crimes and did not unduly prejudice the jury. The court also held that the removal of a potential juror due to their views on the death penalty did not violate the defendant's right to a representative jury.

People v. Cartwright

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: D080606(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 25, 2024

Judge: DATO

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In San Diego, California, Kevin Eugene Cartwright was convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances, robbery, burglary, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and owning or possessing ammunition as a prohibited person. Cartwright appealed the judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress video footage from the City of San Diego's "City IQ" streetlight camera program and evidence derived from the footage. Cartwright contended that the police conducted a warrantless search when they accessed the streetlight camera footage and any evidence obtained as a result of the footage should be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree."

The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, disagreed with Cartwright's argument. The court held that Cartwright did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy when he traversed a public right of way in downtown San Diego in the middle of a business day. The court found that the streetlight cameras only captured short-term movements and did not create a retrospective database of everyone's movements across the city. The court concluded that the police did not conduct a "search" when they accessed footage from the City of San Diego's streetlight cameras, and there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment against Cartwright.

People v. Smyth

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: C097934(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 24, 2024

Judge: RENNER

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In California, a man named Clifford James Smyth, who was categorized as a tier two sex offender, sought to be removed from the California sex offender registry. However, at the time of his petition, he was living and registered as a sex offender in Oregon, not California. The Superior Court of Glenn County denied his petition, stating that he was not currently registered as a sex offender in California. On appeal, Smyth argued that the denial of his petition violated equal protection and was contrary to the legislative intent of California's sex offender registration laws.

The Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the California law, which was restructured to establish three tiers of registration for sex offenders, only allowed people registered in California to petition for termination from the California sex offender registry. The court disagreed with Smyth's argument that excluding out-of-state registrants from obtaining relief was contrary to the legislative intent and was absurd. The court reasoned that as someone not registered in California, the legislative concerns did not apply to Smyth.

Furthermore, the court rejected Smyth's equal protection claim, concluding that out-of-state registrants are not similarly situated to California registrants for purposes of the California law, as they do not contribute to the problems identified by the Legislature when it decided to adopt the statute. The court also noted that even if out-of-state registrants were similarly situated, the distinction between the two groups would survive the requisite degree of scrutiny as there was a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and a legitimate governmental purpose.

Terreros v. State

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Docket: 435, 2022

Opinion Date: January 18, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 2019, Jose Terreros was left in charge of his girlfriend's children. Upon returning home, his girlfriend was informed by her four-year-old daughter that Terreros had sexually abused her. The girlfriend immediately asked Terreros to leave and called the police. She later discovered concerning web searches on Terreros's phone, which he had left behind, including queries about how long saliva and fingerprints remain on bodies and clothes, and whether police can detect if a child has been raped. Based on this, investigators obtained a warrant to search Terreros's phone. They searched his messages, messaging apps, photos, videos, internet search history, GPS coordinates, and incoming and outgoing calls without any date restrictions. On trial, Terreros was found guilty of Sexual Abuse of a Child and Dangerous Crime Against a Child, but not guilty of Rape First Degree. Terreros appealed his conviction, arguing that the warrant was overbroad and that the verdicts were inconsistent. The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware agreed with Terreros regarding the warrant, finding it to be a general warrant and thus unconstitutional. The court held that all evidence obtained from the phone should have been suppressed. The court also remanded the inconsistent verdicts issue back to the lower court for further consideration, as it had not been fully addressed by the State. The court reversed Terreros's convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arlington Heights Police Pension Fund v. Pritzker

Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

Citation: 2024 IL 129471

Opinion Date: January 19, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

In the state of Illinois, a group of active and retired members of local police and firefighter pension funds filed a complaint against the Governor and other officials, challenging the constitutionality of Public Act 101-610. This Act amended the Illinois Pension Code and consolidated all local police and firefighter pension fund assets into two statewide pension investment funds. The plaintiffs claimed the Act violated two provisions of the Illinois Constitution: the pension protection clause and the takings clause. They argued that the Act diminished their pension benefits by diluting their voting power and control over investment decisions, and by imposing costs associated with the Act's implementation, including repayment of any transition loans. The Supreme Court of Illinois disagreed with the plaintiffs, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The court ruled that the Act does not violate the pension protection clause because the ability to vote in local pension board elections and control local pension fund investments are not constitutionally protected benefits. They also ruled that the Act does not violate the takings clause because the plaintiffs do not have a private property right in the funds that are to be transferred to the new statewide funds. The Act only changes how local fund assets are managed and invested without affecting the ultimate use of those assets to pay the benefits of local fund members. Thus, the Act remains in effect.

State of Maine v. Dana A. Healey

Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Citation: 2024 ME 4

Opinion Date: January 23, 2024

Judge: LAWRENCE

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In the case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Dana A. Healey appealed his conviction for domestic violence assault. Healey argued that the trial court exceeded its discretion by not allowing him or his attorneys to conduct a voir dire examination of the jury and by denying his requests to cross-examine the victim about her recanted domestic violence allegation against another person and the text messages that she sent to Healey after his arrest. Healey contended that these rulings violated his constitutional rights to a jury trial and to confront witnesses against him.

The court acknowledged Healey's concerns but ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Healey’s request to cross-examine the victim about her recanting a domestic violence allegation against another person. The court also found that the trial court erred in excluding at least one of the victim’s text messages to Healey: the message stating, “We’re even.” However, the court determined that, despite this error, there was sufficient, independent evidence to support the jury's verdict.

The court based its decision on the testimony of the responding officer and a witness who saw the incident, as well as the 9-1-1 call made by the witness. These pieces of evidence, the court concluded, provided sufficient support for the jury's verdict, regardless of the excluded text messages. Therefore, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the excluded evidence would not have affected the jury's verdict. As such, the court affirmed Healey's conviction and sentence.

Trump v. Secretary of State

Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Citation: 2024 ME 5

Opinion Date: January 24, 2024

Judge: STANFILL

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law

In Maine, former President Donald J. Trump submitted a petition for his candidacy for the Republican Party’s presidential primary. Three challengers subsequently claimed that Trump was disqualified from running because he had previously sworn to support the U.S. Constitution as President and then engaged in insurrection, which they argued precluded him from holding office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary of State held a hearing and decided that Trump was not qualified to appear on the ballot. Trump appealed this decision to the Superior Court, which remanded the matter back to the Secretary of State for a new ruling after the Supreme Court reaches a decision in a related case. The Secretary of State and the three challengers appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which dismissed the appeal as interlocutory and not justiciable, holding that it was not from a final judgment. The court reasoned that uncertainties regarding issues of federal law pervaded the proceedings and were likely to require additional proceedings. The court deemed that an immediate review would likely result in an advisory opinion and could cause additional delay that the existing interlocutory order might avoid.

Commonwealth v. Padilla

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Docket: SJC-13411

Opinion Date: January 18, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

In this case, a Superior Court judge in Massachusetts sought guidance from the Supreme Judicial Court on three questions involving the pretrial confinement of a juvenile charged with murder. The juvenile, who was sixteen years old when he was charged with second-degree murder, was initially held without bail at a Department of Youth Services (DYS) facility due to a "courtesy" arrangement with the county sheriff. As the juvenile neared his eighteenth birthday, he was informed that he would be moved to an adult facility. In response, a Superior Court judge released him on personal recognizance on the murder charge and set bail on a related non-murder charge, ordering that he stay at the DYS facility.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was asked to determine: 1) whether a Superior Court judge can commit a person under age eighteen charged with murder to DYS's care as a pre-trial detainee; 2) if not, can a Superior Court judge set bail on a charge related to, but other than murder, so that the person under eighteen is not held on bail on the murder charge and is committed to DYS's care; and 3) if the answers to questions 1 and 2 are "No," is the last paragraph of G. L. c. 119, § 68 (which mandates that juveniles charged with murder be committed to the custody of the sheriff) unconstitutional?

The Supreme Judicial Court declined to answer the third question due to mootness, as the defendant had since turned eighteen and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Regarding the first two questions, the court referred to its previous ruling in Nicholas-Taylor v. Commonwealth and affirmed that a Superior Court judge does not have the authority to commit a juvenile defendant charged with murder to the custody of DYS, nor can they sidestep this requirement by committing the juvenile to DYS on a related non-murder offense. Therefore, the answers to the first and second questions were "No."

Christopher Stewart v. State of Mississippi

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2022-KA-00107-SCT

Opinion Date: January 18, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Mississippi heard an appeal by Christopher Stewart who was convicted on two counts of sexual battery against his two preteen nieces. Stewart argued that he was entitled to a new trial because he was not physically present at a pretrial tender-years hearing due to COVID-19 restrictions and also claimed that the evidence presented was insufficient. The court affirmed both convictions and sentences. It held that Stewart's virtual attendance at the hearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic did not constitute reversible error as he was able to cross-examine the witnesses at the trial where he was physically present. The court referred to a similar case (Kentucky v. Stincer) where the Supreme Court found no Confrontation Clause or due-process violation for a defendant's exclusion from a pretrial hearing. As for the sufficiency of the evidence, the court rejected Stewart's claim that the State had to prove all three methods of penetration (vaginal, anal, and oral) as charged in the indictment. The court found that there was evidence of all three types of penetration and, in any case, the State only needed to prove one form of penetration to establish the offense of sexual battery.

State v. Clark

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Citation: 315 Neb. 736

Opinion Date: January 19, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Nebraska Supreme Court heard an appeal from Angelina M. Clark who was convicted for terroristic threats and third-degree sexual assault. Clark argued that her trial before an all-male jury violated her constitutional rights to a fair trial and an impartial jury. She also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for terroristic threats and that her trial counsel was ineffective.

The court held that Clark waived any objection to the all-male jury by failing to challenge the jurors for disqualification during the trial. It also determined that there was sufficient evidence to support Clark's conviction for terroristic threats. The court found that Clark's claim of ineffective counsel was without merit as the statements her counsel failed to object to were not hearsay, and any objection to them on hearsay grounds would have been meritless. Finally, the court rejected Clark’s claim that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion in limine to exclude certain testimony, as she failed to show she suffered prejudice as a result of this alleged failure.

The court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding that Clark's claims were without merit.

In re Guardianship of J.H.

Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Docket: 2022-0664

Opinion Date: January 24, 2024

Judge: HANTZ MARCONI

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Family Law

This case involves a minor, J.H., whose father is in jail and whose mother passed away when he was less than three years old. The child's maternal grandmother was appointed as his guardian. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire was asked to review an order by the Circuit Court, which prohibited the grandmother from testifying against the father's release from prison at any parole or similar hearings without first obtaining permission from the Circuit Court.

The grandmother appealed this order, arguing that it violated her right to freedom of speech. The Circuit Court denied her motion, reasoning that J.H.'s best interests outweighed the grandmother's free speech rights.

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the Circuit Court's decision in part. The Supreme Court found that the Circuit Court exceeded its statutory authority by restricting the grandmother's ability to testify at the father's parole hearing. The Supreme Court interpreted the relevant statute, RSA chapter 463, and determined that while it does grant the Circuit Court the authority to limit or restrict the powers of a guardian or impose additional duties in the best interests of the minor, it does not permit the court to restrict the guardian from speaking at a parole hearing. The Supreme Court concluded that this restriction was unrelated to the grandmother's role as guardian and was therefore not within the scope of the court's authority. As a result, the case was remanded back to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.

In the Matter of Satas & Crabtree-Satas

Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Docket: 2021-0419

Opinion Date: January 24, 2024

Judge: HANTZ MARCONI

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Family Law

In this case, Alden Satas, the petitioner, sought parenting rights for his ex-wife's biological child from a previous relationship. The couple, Satas and Courtney Crabtree-Satas, the respondent, had married when the child was about two and a half years old. They divorced in 2017 and Satas never adopted the child, but the child continued to live with him for some time after the divorce. In December 2020, Satas filed a petition seeking a parenting plan concerning the child. Crabtree-Satas moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that Satas' status as the child's stepparent ended when the parties divorced. The trial court found that Satas had standing to request parenting rights and responsibilities.

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire was asked to consider three questions in this case. The first question was whether the trial court erred in finding that Satas was the stepparent of the child, given that the definition of a stepparent implies a current marital relationship, and Satas and Crabtree-Satas had been divorced since 2017. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire agreed that Satas is not a stepparent for the purposes of RSA 461-A:6, V because he was no longer married to the child's mother at the time he filed his petition for visitation privileges. The court thus found that the trial court had erred in ruling to the contrary.

The second question asked whether the trial court erred in finding that Satas had standing to bring a petition for parenting rights and responsibilities on the basis that he had established an in loco parentis status with respect to the child. However, since the court had already found that Satas was not a stepparent, it did not need to address this question.

The third question concerned whether the trial court violated the respondent's constitutional rights. However, the court did not need to answer this question as it had already resolved the appeal on statutory grounds.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the petitioner's petition.

Walterboro Comm Hospital v. SCDHEC

Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Docket: 28189

Opinion Date: January 24, 2024

Judge: FEW

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

In South Carolina, two hospitals, Walterboro Community Hospital and Trident Medical Center, appealed an Administrative Law Court (ALC) order which approved the certificate of need (CON) for the Medical University Hospital Authority (MUHA). MUHA had applied for a CON to construct a new general hospital in Berkeley County to address capacity issues at its existing hospital in Charleston. The appellant hospitals raised four issues against ALC's decision: 1) the ALC's dismissal of certain errors in the review by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), 2) a misinterpretation of the State Health Plan by the ALC, 3) the ALC's approval of MUHA's application conditional on the closure of a freestanding emergency department planned by MUHA, and 4) the appeal bond required by South Carolina law is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the ALC's decision and held that despite errors in DHEC's review process and decision, the ALC's de novo review rendered these errors harmless. The court also agreed with ALC's interpretation of the State Health Plan and found no issue in the ALC's condition of approval. The court further held that the appeal bond requirement was not unconstitutional, as the appellant hospitals were statutory affected persons and there was a rational basis for different treatment for a party opposing an approved CON and a party appealing the denial of its own CON application. However, the court did instruct that the appeal bond be voided and returned to Trident Medical Center.

King County v. Abernathy

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Docket: 101,075-3

Opinion Date: January 25, 2024

Judge: MONTOYA-LEWIS

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Real Estate & Property Law

In "King County v. Michael J. Abernathy et al.", the Supreme Court of the State of Washington answered a question certified by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case involved a dispute over the ownership of a 3.6 mile section of land along the shore of Lake Sammamish, known as the Corridor. In 1887, prior to Washington becoming a state, a railroad company was granted a "right-of-way" to build a railroad over the Corridor. Since then, the Corridor and surrounding shorelands have been used by various parties including individual property owners, the state, and the county. The certified question asked whether a right-of-way approved by the United States Department of the Interior under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 is a conveyance "patented by the United States" under Article XVII, Section 2 of the Washington State Constitution. If the land was "patented" by the federal government, it would have been owned by the railroad and later King County. If the land was not patented, Washington would have owned it at the time of statehood and later conveyed it to private parties, and the shoreland would currently belong to the homeowners, the Abernathys. The Washington Supreme Court held that the right-of-way was an easement and did not constitute a land conveyance patented by the United States. Therefore, the land belonged to Washington at the time of statehood and is presently owned by the homeowners.