Table of Contents
|
Anvar v. Dwyer
Constitutional Law, Consumer Law, Government & Administrative Law
US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
|
Apter v. Dept of Health & Human Svc
Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Health Law
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
|
Calhoun v. Collier
Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
|
Healthy Gulf v. US Army Corps of Eng
Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Government & Administrative Law
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
|
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, ET AL V. USFS, ET AL
Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
|
JAMES HUFFMAN V. AMY LINDGREN, ET AL
Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Legal Ethics
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
|
SALOOJAS, INC. V. AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
Contracts, Government & Administrative Law, Insurance Law
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
|
SEIA V. FERC
Civil Procedure, Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Government & Administrative Law
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
|
UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORP., ET AL V. USAF, ET AL
Civil Procedure, Contracts, Government & Administrative Law, Intellectual Property
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
|
Jasmine Adams, et al v. Demopolis City Schools, et al
Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Education Law, Government & Administrative Law
US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
|
Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Xavier Becerra
Government & Administrative Law, Public Benefits
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
|
Pomona Valley Hospital Med v. Xavier Becerra
Government & Administrative Law, Health Law
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
|
Coastal Protection Alliance v. Airbnb
Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law
California Courts of Appeal
|
Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club
Admiralty & Maritime Law, Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury
California Courts of Appeal
|
Tsakopoulos Investments, LLC v. County of Sacramento
Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law
California Courts of Appeal
|
McCreery v. King, M.D., et al.
Family Law, Government & Administrative Law
Idaho Supreme Court - Civil
|
NW Neighborhood Assoc v. City of Boise
Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use
Idaho Supreme Court - Civil
|
Wood v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife
Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
|
Prince George's County v. Concerned Citizens
Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use
Maryland Supreme Court
|
Mississippi State Agencies Self-Insured Workers' Compensation Trust v. Herrgott
Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury
Supreme Court of Mississippi
|
Tiegs v. State, Dep't of Revenue
Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law
Montana Supreme Court
|
State, Dep't of Health v. District Court
Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law, Health Law
Supreme Court of Nevada
|
Q Link Wireless LLC v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
Communications Law, Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law
New Mexico Supreme Court
|
Sound Rivers, Inc. v. N.C. Dep't of Environmental Quality
Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law
North Carolina Supreme Court
|
State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson
Communications Law, Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law
Supreme Court of Ohio
|
State ex rel. Cleveland Ass'n of Rescue Employees v. City of Cleveland
Communications Law, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law
Supreme Court of Ohio
|
State ex rel. Duncan v. Mentor
Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law
Supreme Court of Ohio
|
State ex rel. Griffin v. Szoke
Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law
Supreme Court of Ohio
|
State ex rel. Harris v. Industrial Comm'n
Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury
Supreme Court of Ohio
|
Duncan House Charitable Corp. v. Harris County Appraisal District
Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law
Supreme Court of Texas
|
Wahkiakum Sch. Dist. No. 200 v. Washington
Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Education Law, Government & Administrative Law
Washington Supreme Court
|
Wolf v. Washington
Civil Procedure, Family Law, Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury, Trusts & Estates
Washington Supreme Court
|
|
Government & Administrative Law Opinions
|
Anvar v. Dwyer
|
Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Docket:
22-1843
Opinion Date: September 7, 2023
Judge:
Selya
Areas of Law:
Constitutional Law, Consumer Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
In this appeal arising out of a challenge to Rhode Island's liquor laws the First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment for Defendants as to all claims, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment as to the constitutionality of the in-state-presence requirement for retailers.
Plaintiffs, Rhode Island wine consumers, brought this action alleging that, in violation of the Commerce Clause, Rhode Island consumers are denied access to alcohol deliveries from out-of-state retailers. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The First Circuit vacated the lower judgment in part, holding that the district court erred in entering summary judgment as to the constitutionality of the in-state-presence requirement for retailers and remanded for a fuller consideration of the parties' respective offers of proof. The district court upheld the in-state-presence requirement for retailers. The First Circuit affirmed the judgment in part and vacated it in part and remanded the matter for further proceedings, holding that a discriminatory aspect of the State's version of the "three-tier system" could not be affirmed.
|
|
Apter v. Dept of Health & Human Svc
|
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Docket:
22-40802
Opinion Date: September 1, 2023
Judge:
Don R. Willett
Areas of Law:
Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Health Law
|
A group of Doctors sued the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services (together, the “Agencies”), claiming an FDA ad intended to deter people from off-label use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19. Each Doctor says that FDA’s messaging interfered with their own individual medical practice.
The Doctors argue that FDA’s ad and similar public statements violated FDA’s enabling act (“Act”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The district court held that sovereign immunity protects the Agencies and the Officials, and it dismissed the suit. The Fifth Circuit reversed.
The Fifth Circuit held that the Doctors can use the APA to bypass sovereign immunity and assert their ultra vires claims against the Agencies and the Officials. The ad was plausibly agency action, because it publicly announced the general principle that consumers should not use ivermectin to treat the coronavirus, and the Doctors fall within the Act’s zone of interests.
The Doctors’ pure APA claim cannot go forward because the ad does not determine legal rights and thus lacks the finality. However, the Fifth Circuit held that the Doctors’ first theory was enough to allow this suit to proceed.
|
|
Calhoun v. Collier
|
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Docket:
22-50634
Opinion Date: August 31, 2023
Judge:
James Earl Graves, Jr.
Areas of Law:
Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law
|
Due to a settlement in a civil matter, Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated in Gatesville, Texas had an inmate trust fund worth nearly $100,000.00. In December of 2019, Plaintiff made a suspicious withdrawal, and Appellee, a former senior warden, notified her that she was under investigation for trafficking. Shortly after, Plaintiff was found guilty of the lowest level of rule violation. Plaintiff now asserts that she has submitted approximately three or four separate withdrawal requests to TDCJ, which were all denied without notice or an opportunity to be heard in violation of her procedural due process rights. The district court granted summary judgment to all Appellees and entered a final judgment. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) and a Rule 15(a) motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which the district court denied.
The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and reversed the district court’s ruling denying Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion. The court explained that the Ex Parte Young exception applies to this case. The court explained that any of Plaintiff’s claims seeking declaratory relief based on purported constitutional violations occurring in the past, as well as any requests for monetary damages, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. However, her claims to enjoin a future action that might violate her constitutional rights may proceed. Further, the court held that Plaintiff provided evidence that her procedural due process rights were violated, which precludes summary judgment. Finally, the court found that the court erred in not vacating the judgment and granting Plaintiff leave to amend her pleadings.
|
|
Healthy Gulf v. US Army Corps of Eng
|
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Docket:
22-60397
Opinion Date: September 6, 2023
Judge:
Jerry E. Smith
Areas of Law:
Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
Driftwood LNG and Driftwood Pipeline (jointly “Driftwood”) want to convert natural gas produced in the United States into liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) for export to international markets. That undertaking involves building an LNG production and export terminal and a pipeline that will connect to existing interstate pipeline systems; the terminal would be located on the Calcasieu River in Louisiana. Numerous federal and state agencies are involved in the approval and permitting process for projects such as Driftwood’s. One of those agencies— the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“the Corps”)—granted Driftwood one of the requisite permits. Petitioners Healthy Gulf and Sierra Club petition for review of that permit, alleging that the Corps’s decision violated the governing statute and was arbitrary and capricious.
The Fifth Circuit denied the petition. The court explained that the record reveals thorough analysis and cooperation by the Corps and other agencies and a lucid explanation of why the Corps was permitting a departure from the default hierarchy. The court wrote that the approval process spanned several years and involved detailed analysis by (and often the cooperation of) FERC, the Corps, the EPA, the National Marine Fisheries Services, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and LDEQ, among others. The administrative record is over 24,000 pages and provides more than enough insight into the agencies’ deliberations. Moreover, the court explained that both the Corps and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (which issued Driftwood a Coastal Use permit) imposed conditions on Driftwood to ensure that it did not dredge and use contaminated material.
|
|
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, ET AL V. USFS, ET AL
|
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Docket:
21-15907
Opinion Date: September 1, 2023
Judge:
Bybee
Areas of Law:
Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
The Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Grand Canyon Wildlands Council (collectively, “CBD”) contend that the United States Forest Service (“USFS”) is liable under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), for “contributing to the past or present . . . disposal” of lead ammunition in the Kaibab National Forest. The district court concluded that USFS is not liable as a contributor under RCRA and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The panel held that (a) the Forest Service’s choice not to regulate despite having the authority to do so does not manifest the type of actual, active control contemplated by RCRA; (b) although the Forest Service has the authority to further regulate Special Use permits, it has not done so, and RCRA does not impose a duty on the Forest Service to do so; and (c) mere ownership is insufficient to establish contributor liability under RCRA. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying CBD’s motion to amend its complaint to add RCRA claims against Arizona officials because CBD’s proposed amendment did not add any new claims or allegations against the Forest Service, and its claims against Arizona officials were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Finally, the panel denied as moot CBD’s request that this case be reassigned to a different district judge.
|
|
JAMES HUFFMAN V. AMY LINDGREN, ET AL
|
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Docket:
22-35471
Opinion Date: September 1, 2023
Judge:
McKeown
Areas of Law:
Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Legal Ethics
|
Plaintiff, a practicing attorney, sued a municipal court judge, a prosecutor, and the City of St. Helens, Oregon, in state court. After Defendants removed the case to federal court, Plaintiff moved to remand to state court, claiming that, although his complaint referenced federal law, it was poorly drafted, and he did not intend to bring federal claims. The district court severed and remanded the state-only claims and dismissed the retained claims with prejudice. On appeal, Plaintiff filed an informal pro se brief and argued that he should have been granted leave to amend his complaint to exclude any mention of a federal claim and to seek a remand to state court.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that, although there is a good reason for awarding leeway to pro se parties who presumably are unskilled in the law and more prone to make pleading errors, that logic does not apply to practicing attorneys. The panel determined that his attempt to backtrack seemed aimed at robbing the government of its removal option and ensuring another bite at the apple in state court. The panel held that a sophisticated attorney like Plaintiff should not be allowed to jettison his own complaint when it is beneficial yet avoid the consequences of that renunciation. The panel held that because Plaintiff facially alleged a violation of his federal rights, the district court had federal question jurisdiction. In view of the immunity of the government defendants, the complaint could not be saved by amendment, and therefore the district court’s dismissal without leave to amend was proper.
|
|
SALOOJAS, INC. V. AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
|
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Docket:
22-16034
Opinion Date: September 7, 2023
Judge:
Nguyen
Areas of Law:
Contracts, Government & Administrative Law, Insurance Law
|
Saloojas, Inc. (“Saloojas”) filed five actions against Aetna Health of California, Inc. (“Aetna”), seeking to recover the difference in cost between its posted cash price for COVID-19 testing and the amount of reimbursement it received from Aetna. Saloojas argues that Section 3202 of the CARES Act requires Aetna to reimburse out-of-network providers like Saloojas for the cash price of diagnostic tests listed on their websites. The district court dismissed this action on the ground that the CARES Act does not provide a private right of action to enforce violations of Section 3202.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that the CARES Act does not provide a private right of action to enforce violations of Section 3202. Saloojas correctly conceded that the CARES Act did not create an express private right of action. The panel held that there is not an implied private right of action for providers to sue insurers. The use of mandatory language requiring reimbursement at the cash price does not demonstrate Congress’s intent to create such a right. The statute does not use “rights-creating language” that places “an unmistakable focus” on the individuals protected as opposed to the party regulated.
|
|
SEIA V. FERC
|
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Docket:
20-72788
Opinion Date: September 5, 2023
Judge:
Miller
Areas of Law:
Civil Procedure, Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
This case involves rules adopted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to implement the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). Congress enacted PURPA to encourage the development of a new class of independent, non-utility-owned energy producers known as “Qualifying Facilities,” or “QFs.” PURPA tasks FERC with promulgating rules to implement the statute. In 2020, FERC revised its rules to alter which facilities qualify for PURPA’s benefits and how those facilities are compensated. The new rules make it more difficult to qualify for treatment as a QF, and they also make QF status less advantageous.
The Ninth Circuit granted in part and denied in part a petition for review brought by the Solar Energy Industries Association and several environmental organizations challenging Orders 872 and 872-A (collectively, “Order 872”). The panel rejected Petitioners’ argument that Order 872 as a whole is inconsistent with PURPA’s directive that FERC “encourage” the development of QFs. Applying the two-step framework of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the panel held that (1) PURPA on its face gives FERC broad discretion to evaluate which rules are necessary to encourage QFs and which are not, and (2) FERC’s interpretation was not unreasonable. Next, the panel rejected Petitioners’ challenges to four specific provisions of Order 872. First, the panel held that the modified Site Rule—which modified the rules for determining when facilities are deemed to be located at the same or separate sites—survives Chevron, is not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and is not unlawfully retroactive.
|
|
UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORP., ET AL V. USAF, ET AL
|
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Docket:
21-56377
Opinion Date: September 7, 2023
Judge:
Milan D. Smith, Jr.
Areas of Law:
Civil Procedure, Contracts, Government & Administrative Law, Intellectual Property
|
United Aeronautical Corporation and Blue Aerospace, LLC (collectively, Aero) filed suit against the United States Air Force and Air National Guard (collectively, USAF) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Aero alleges that USAF has for some time violated federal procurement regulations and the Trade Secrets Act by improperly using Aero’s intellectual property. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), precludes jurisdiction over Aero’s action by vesting exclusive jurisdiction over federal-contractor disputes in the Court of Federal Claims.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel agreed with the district court that the Contract Disputes Act “impliedly forbids” jurisdiction over Aero’s claims by vesting exclusive jurisdiction over federal-contractor disputes in the Court of Federal Claims. A claim falls within the scope of the CDA’s exclusive grant of jurisdiction if (1) the plaintiff’s action relates to (2) a procurement contract and (3) to which the plaintiff was a party. Here, Aero’s claims that USAF improperly received and used MAFFS data (1) relate to the DRA, (2) the DRA is a procurement contract, and (3) Aero is a contractor for purposes of the DRA. The panel held that the test set forth in Megapulse, Inc. v. Lewis, 672 F.2d 959 (D.C. Cir. 1982), is limited to determining whether the Tucker Act—which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims over breach-of-contract actions for money damages—“impliedly forbids” an ADA action because Megapulse addressed implied preclusion only pursuant to the Tucker Act, not pursuant to the CDA.
|
|
Jasmine Adams, et al v. Demopolis City Schools, et al
|
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Docket:
22-11317
Opinion Date: September 1, 2023
Judge:
Jill Pryor
Areas of Law:
Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Education Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
A nine-year-old girl took her own life after a classmate repeatedly delivered racist insults to her. The girl's mother and grandmother sought to hold the school system and several school officials accountable for her death. The family filed a lawsuit asserting claims arising under federal and state law against the school system and the school officials. The district court granted summary judgment to the school system and its officials, concluding that the family failed to satisfy various elements of their federal statutory claims and that qualified immunity barred at least one of the claims. The court concluded that the state law claims failed on immunity grounds. The family appealed.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Although the response of the school system and its officials was "truly discouraging," the standard for relief in cases of student-on-student harassment was not met. The court explained that a reasonable jury could not
find that DCS acted with deliberate indifference, that it intentionally discriminated against the girl, or that Defendants' actions were arbitrary or conscience-shocking. Thus, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendants on the family's Title IX, Title VI, equal protection, and substantive due process claims.
|
|
Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Xavier Becerra
|
Court: US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Docket:
22-5214
Opinion Date: September 1, 2023
Judge:
KATSAS
Areas of Law:
Government & Administrative Law, Public Benefits
|
Hospitals treating Medicare beneficiaries receive greater reimbursements to the extent that the beneficiaries are also entitled to supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The Secretary of Health and Human Services understands this population to include only patients receiving cash payments during the month in question. Various hospitals contend that this population also includes patients receiving a subsidy under Medicare Part D and vocational training. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The DC Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the hospitals argued that Empire compels their construction of the phrase “entitled to supplementary security income benefits.” The court wrote that this s argument misses key distinctions between the Part A and SSI schemes. First, Part A benefits extend well beyond payment for specific services at specific times. Moreover, the court explained that age or chronic disability makes a person eligible for Part A benefits “without an application or anything more,” and individuals rarely, if ever lose this eligibility over time.
Moreover, the court explained that the hospitals contend that HHS arbitrarily excluded patients whose SSI benefits were withheld under the so-called “cross-program recovery” scheme. The court reasoned that this assertion is mistaken. Next, the court explained that the hospitals contend that HHS unreasonably focused on whether patients receive SSI payments when hospitalized because the payments depend on income and resource levels from earlier months. But “eligibility” for the SSI benefit “for a month” depends on the individual’s income, resources, and other characteristics “in such month.”
|
|
Pomona Valley Hospital Med v. Xavier Becerra
|
Court: US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Docket:
20-5350
Opinion Date: September 1, 2023
Judge:
KATSAS
Areas of Law:
Government & Administrative Law, Health Law
|
Hospitals receive greater payment if their Medicare patients are disproportionately low-income individuals entitled to federal supplemental security income benefits. Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center contends that the Department of Health and Human Services undercounted the number of its Medicare patients who were entitled to SSI benefits and thus undercompensated the hospital for treating them. Pomona sought to prove the undercount through data from state benefit programs that piggyback on SSI. In an administrative proceeding, Pomona introduced expert testimony explaining how the state data derives from and overlaps with the federal SSI data. The Provider Reimbursement Review Board held that Pomona failed to prove the undercount, but the district court set aside its decision and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings.
The DC Circuit affirmed. The court explained that using statewide statistics, Pomona estimated that fewer than 10 such patients would likely show up in its SSI-fraction calculations in any given year. And neither the Board nor the Contractor countered these estimates. Given the lack of contrary evidence in the record, such discrepancies appear immaterial and suggest no substantial flaw in Pomona’s methodology. Further, the court explained that Pomona provided uncontroverted evidence that two potential difficulties with its approach amounted to little more than rounding errors. It proffered creditable testimony from two experts indicating that the only explanation for the discrepancy was some error in CMS’s collection or matching of data. By contrast, the Contractor remained silent. Given the strength of the hospital’s showing, and the absence of any countervailing evidence, the Board’s conclusion that Pomona had failed to prove an undercount was unreasonable
|
|
Coastal Protection Alliance v. Airbnb
|
Court: California Courts of Appeal
Docket:
B317485(Second Appellate District)
Opinion Date: September 5, 2023
Judge:
HEIDEL
Areas of Law:
Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law
|
Airbnb, Inc. and Airbnb Payments, Inc. (collectively Airbnb) is an online marketplace that connects owners of short-term rentals (STRs) with renters seeking accommodations for 30 days or less. Among Airbnb’s many rental listings are properties within California’s coastal zone. The Coastal Protection Alliance (CPA) brought an action against Airbnb for violations of the Coastal Act, alleging that STRs in the coastal zone are “developments” that require a coastal development permit (CDP) and that Airbnb was directly and vicariously liable for allowing STR owners to list and rent unpermitted STRs on its website. CPA appealed from a judgment following an order granting Airbnb’s demurrer without leave to amend.
The Second Appellate District affirmed, holding that t STRs are not per se developments under the Coastal Act. The court explained that a development does not occur merely because a residence is used as an STR. Whether using a residence as an STR is a “change in the density or intensity of the use of land,” and thus, a development under the Coastal Act depends on the permissible scope of the residence’s existing use. Here, CPA’s sweeping interpretation of development to include every STR would circumvent the specifically tailored zoning ordinances in the LCPs throughout the coastal zone. Interpreting the Coastal Act in this way is neither reasonable nor consistent with the Act’s acknowledged reliance on “local government and local land use planning procedures and enforcement” in carrying out the Act’s goals.
|
|
Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club
|
Court: California Courts of Appeal
Docket:
B315302(Second Appellate District)
Opinion Date: September 6, 2023
Judge:
WILEY
Areas of Law:
Admiralty & Maritime Law, Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury
|
Plaintiff fell while stepping from a dock to a boat. He sued his employer—a yacht club in Long Beach—under federal admiralty law. The trial court sustained the club’s final demurrer to the second amended complaint. The court ruled there was no admiralty jurisdiction.
The Second Appellate District affirmed the court’s ruling without deciding about admiralty jurisdiction. The court explained that Congress in 1984 specified employees covered by state workers’ compensation law working at a “club” are covered by state workers’ compensation law and not federal law if they are eligible for state workers’ compensation. The court wrote that Plaintiff concedes the yacht club is a “club.” Federal law thus makes California state workers’ compensation law paramount, which means Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is workers’ compensation. The court wrote that a core part of the state workers’ compensation bargain is that injured workers get speedy and predictable relief irrespective of fault. In return, workers are barred from suing their employers in tort. Thus, the trial court correctly dismissed Plaintiff’s tort suit against his employer.
|
|
Tsakopoulos Investments, LLC v. County of Sacramento
|
Court: California Courts of Appeal
Docket:
C095631(Third Appellate District)
Opinion Date: September 7, 2023
Judge:
Robie
Areas of Law:
Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
Plaintiff Tsakopoulos Investments, LLC (Tsakopoulos) sought mandamus and declaratory relief against defendants the County of Sacramento (County) and the Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing, challenging the County’s approval of a project known as the Mather South Community Master Plan (the project) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The trial court denied the petition and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Tsakopoulos appealed, arguing the Court of Appeal should reverse the judgment because the final environmental impact report (final report) was deficient because: (1) the climate change analysis was based on a methodology that the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, 62 Cal.4th 204 (2015) and the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego, 27 Cal.App.5th 892 (2018) previously rejected as unsupported by substantial evidence; (2) the County “failed to assess the impacts from construction-related greenhouse gas emissions” in its climate change analysis; and (3) the County “failed to analyze the human health impacts associated with the” project’s emissions from criteria pollutants. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal explained why the County’s climate change analysis was not previously rejected by the Supreme Court or the Fourth District Court of Appeal for lack of substantial evidence. In the unpublished portion of opinion, the Court found Tsakopoulos presented no meritorious contentions to challenge the County’s construction-related and human health impacts analyses.
|
|
McCreery v. King, M.D., et al.
|
Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Civil
Docket:
49385
Opinion Date: September 6, 2023
Judge:
Bevan
Areas of Law:
Family Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
This lawsuit arose from an investigation into whether Appellant Kristine McCreery abused or neglected her fifteen-year-old son, B.M. McCreery filed a complaint against two physicians who reported the alleged abuse, the detective who investigated the reports, the deputy prosecutor who filed the Child Protection Act (“CPA”) action, and the social worker for the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare who submitted an investigatory report and testified in the CPA case (collectively “defendants” or “Respondents”), alleging they had violated her constitutional rights and Idaho’s false reporting statutes when they took actions to separate her from B.M. for over fifteen months. The district court dismissed McCreery’s claims with prejudice after finding Respondents were immune from liability and that the allegations in McCreery’s complaint failed to state any valid claim upon which relief could be granted. McCreery moved to amend her complaint, which the district court denied. McCreery appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing that the district court erroneously dismissed her claims. The Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed.
|
|
NW Neighborhood Assoc v. City of Boise
|
Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Civil
Docket:
49179
Opinion Date: September 7, 2023
Judge:
Brody
Areas of Law:
Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use
|
Appellant North West Neighborhood Association challenged a district court’s decision upholding Boise City Council’s approval of three interrelated land use applications. The Idaho Supreme Court agreed with Appellant that Boise City Council failed to provide a reasoned statement explaining its approval of the applications as required by section 67-6535(2) of the Local Land Use Planning Act. The Court remanded this matter to the district court with instructions to set aside Boise City Council’s actions and remand to the Council for the adoption of a reasoned statement.
|
|
Wood v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife
|
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Citation:
2023 ME 61
Opinion Date: September 5, 2023
Judge:
Douglas
Areas of Law:
Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to revoke or suspend Appellant's hunting license for three years and his guide license for one year, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.
Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the Commissioner’s interpretation of the statute mandating revocation of Appellant's hunting license for one year was correct, and her action revoking Appellant's hunting license for one year was supported by substantial evidence; (2) Appellant did not overcome the presumption of constitutionality to demonstrate that the statute governing hunting license revocation and suspension was constitutionally vague; and (3) the Legislature acted within constitutional bounds in delegating authority to the Commissioner to establish standards of competency for licensed guides.
|
|
Prince George's County v. Concerned Citizens
|
Court: Maryland Supreme Court
Docket:
23/22
Opinion Date: September 1, 2023
Judge:
Gould
Areas of Law:
Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use
|
In this zoning dispute involving the interplay between the public's interest in the future of a private airport in Prince George's County and the financial interests of its owner, the Supreme Court held that the amended zoning ordinance allowing the airport to develop higher-density housing did not violate Maryland's uniformity requirement, Md. Code Ann., Land Use 22-201(b)(2)(i).
When the airport's owners began experiencing financial difficulties they sought to redevelop the site, which had been limited by the zoning ordnance to low-density, single-family detached housing, for non-airport use. The County Council amended the zoning ordinance to allow for higher-density housing to incentivize the airport's redevelopment. Plaintiffs brought suit. The circuit court concluded that the ordinance did not violate uniformity, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the ordinance violated uniformity because it was tailored so narrowly as to afford favorable development opportunities to only the airport property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the ordinance was adopted to further a valid public purpose and did not discriminate against similarly situated properties, thus surviving the uniformity challenge.
|
|
Mississippi State Agencies Self-Insured Workers' Compensation Trust v. Herrgott
|
Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi
Citation:
2021-SA-01280-SCT
Opinion Date: August 31, 2023
Judge:
Ishee
Areas of Law:
Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury
|
Defendant Alex Herrgott, was driving a four-seat Polaris all-terrain vehicle at night down a gravel road when he “overcorrected” trying to avoid a pothole. The ATV overturned, and Joseph MacNabb, a passenger, was severely injured. Since MacNabb was a state employee in the course and scope of his employment, he received workers’ compensation benefits from the Mississippi State Agencies Self-Insured Workers’ Compensation Trust. The Trust later initiated this litigation in an attempt to recover more than $300,000 in benefits paid for MacNabb’s injury. The circuit court ultimately granted summary judgment to Herrgott because the Trust’s Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) representative could not articulate a legal theory entitling it to recover. The Mississippi Supreme Court found there was sufficient evidence of Herrgott’s negligence for the case to go to trial, and the deposition testimony of a lay witness should not have bound the Trust as to which legal theories it could pursue. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial.
|
|
Tiegs v. State, Dep't of Revenue
|
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Citation:
2023 MT 168
Opinion Date: September 5, 2023
Judge:
James A. Rice
Areas of Law:
Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law
|
The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court in this tax appeal, holding that the district court erred by concluding that Mont. Code Ann. 15-30-2119, the NOL statute, operates as a dollar-for-dollar offset provision that indirectly taxes out-of-state income.
At issue was the decision of the Department of Revenue to deny nonresident taxpayers Franklin and Janet Tiegs a carryover net operating loss (NOL) deduction on their 2014 and 2015 Montana income tax returns. The Montana Tax Appeal Board upheld the Department's decision, but the district court reversed, concluding that Mont. Code Ann. 15-30-2119 was unconstitutional because it authorized taxation of non-Montana income. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court (1) erred by holding that the general use of out-of-state income within the Montana income tax framework violated Mont. Code Ann. 15-30-2102 and federal constitutional principles; and (2) erred by concluding that section 15-30-2119 constitutes impermissible taxation of income outside of Montana's jurisdictional reach.
|
|
State, Dep't of Health v. District Court
|
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Citation:
139 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 28
Opinion Date: August 31, 2023
Judge:
Bell
Areas of Law:
Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law, Health Law
|
The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari or mandamus in this matter arising from district court orders holding Petitioner, the Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health, in contempt for vacating competency court orders, holding that Petitioner failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the need for extraordinary relief.
The competency orders were issued in relation to eleven criminal defendants in Nevada who were all deemed incompetent to assist in their own defense and ordered to psychiatric treatment (collectively, Defendants). Defendants moved to dismiss their cases or, alternatively, for Petitioner to show cause as to why it should not be held in contempt after significant delays in accepting Defendants for treatment. The district court found Petitioner in contempt for failing to comply with the court orders and issued sanctions. Petitioner then filed the instant petition. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to hold Petitioner in contempt and did not manifestly or capriciously abuse its discretion in doing so.
|
|
Q Link Wireless LLC v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
|
Court: New Mexico Supreme Court
Citation:
2023-NMSC-012
Opinion Date: May 22, 2023
Judge:
Barbara J. Vigil
Areas of Law:
Communications Law, Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law
|
Q Link Wireless LLC (Q Link) petitioned the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (Commission) for designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC). The designation would have made Q Link eligible to access certain federal funds for providing telecommunications services to underserved communities in New Mexico. Following lengthy and protracted proceedings before the Commission’s hearing examiner, Q Link filed a motion to withdraw its petition. The hearing examiner filed an Order Recommending Dismissal of Proceeding with Prejudice (Recommended Decision). The recommendation was to dismiss the petition and to ban Q Link from ever again filing a petition to obtain an ETC designation. The Commission adopted the Recommended Decision in full. Q Link appealed, and the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the Commission lacked express or implied statutory authority to ban Q Link from ever again seeking an ETC designation.
|
|
Sound Rivers, Inc. v. N.C. Dep't of Environmental Quality
|
Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
Docket:
306A20
Opinion Date: September 1, 2023
Judge:
Barringer
Areas of Law:
Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) from the Office of Administrative Hearings affirming the decision of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (Division) to issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit to Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.
The permit at issue allowed Martin Marietta to discharge twelve million gallons of mining wastewater per day from Vanceboro Quarry into Blounts Creek tributaries. The ALJ affirmed the issuance of the permit. The superior court reversed, concluding that the Division failed to ensure "reasonable compliance with the biological integrity standard." The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the permit was properly and validly issued in accordance with the applicable regulations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ALJ properly made findings of fact and properly applied those facts to a correct interpretation of the regulatory plain language.
|
|
State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson
|
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation:
2023-Ohio-3080
Opinion Date: September 5, 2023
Judge:
Per Curiam
Areas of Law:
Communications Law, Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus brought under Ohio's Public Records Act, Ohio Rev. Code 149.43, by Harry Barr, an inmate at the Grafton Correctional Institution (GCII), seeking to compel the warden's assistant at GCI to produce the job description for, and the certification or license held by, Jennifer Whitten, a GCI employee, holding that Barr was not entitled to the writ.
In addition to the writ of mandamus, Barr sought statutory damages and also filed a complaint for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction and other motions. The Supreme Court dismissed Barr's complaint for a TRO and a preliminary injunction, granted Barr's motion to amend the evidence and deemed the record supplemented, granted his motion to withdraw his motion for an order pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R.4.01(A), and denied the writ of mandamus and his request for statutory damages, holding that Barr was entitled to some relief.
|
|
State ex rel. Cleveland Ass'n of Rescue Employees v. City of Cleveland
|
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation:
2023-Ohio-3112
Opinion Date: September 7, 2023
Judge:
Per Curiam
Areas of Law:
Communications Law, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law
|
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals granting in part and denying in part a writ of mandamus, affirmed the court's award of statutory damages and court costs, and reversed the award of attorney fees, holding that the court of appeals erred in determining that the City of Cleveland acted in bad faith in this case.
Cleveland Association of Rescue Employees and its president (collectively, the Union) submitted two public records requests to the City, which denied the requests. The Union then filed a complaint for writ of mandamus to compel production of the records and also sought statutory damages and attorney fees for the City's alleged violation of Ohio Rev. Code 149.43(B). The Union later notified the court of appeals that the City had sufficiently produced the requested records and sought summary judgment with respect to statutory damages and attorney fees. The court of appeals awarded the Union statutory damages of $1,000 and attorney fees of $4,672. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the City's refusal to accept a certified-mail service of the complaint was not a legitimate basis on which to award attorney fees.
|
|
State ex rel. Duncan v. Mentor
|
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation:
2023-Ohio-3115
Opinion Date: September 7, 2023
Judge:
Per Curiam
Areas of Law:
Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law
|
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing this complaint brought by Appellant requesting a writ of mandamus to compel the City of Mentor to commence appropriation proceedings for an alleged taking of Appellant's property, holding that the court of appeals did not err in granting the City's motion to dismiss.
Appellant brought this complaint alleging that the decision of the City to deny a permit that would allow him to place a houseboat on a pond that he owned constituted a taking of his property. The court of appeals granted the City's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding (1) Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law and was not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the City to commence appropriation proceedings; and (2) the court of appeals lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Appellant's remaining claims.
|
|
State ex rel. Griffin v. Szoke
|
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation:
2023-Ohio-3096
Opinion Date: September 6, 2023
Judge:
Per Curiam
Areas of Law:
Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
The Supreme Court denied as moot Mark Griffin's request for a writ of mandamus and also denied Griffin's request for statutory damages, holding that Griffin's request for a writ of mandamus was moot.
Griffin, an inmate at the Toledo Correctional Institution, submitted a public-records request to Allan Szoke, a warden's assistant at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Griffin later brought this action seeking a writ of mandamus compelling production of the records and an award of statutory damages. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding (1) because Griffin had received the requested records, his request for a writ of mandamus was moot; and (2) Griffin was not entitled to statutory damages because he did not clearly and convincingly show that Szoke denied his public-records request or otherwise failed to fulfill his duties under the Public Records Act.
|
|
State ex rel. Harris v. Industrial Comm'n
|
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation:
2023-Ohio-3081
Opinion Date: September 5, 2023
Judge:
Per Curiam
Areas of Law:
Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury
|
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ of mandamus sought by Stephen Harris to order the Industrial Commission of Ohio to reverse its decision denying Harris's request for scheduled-loss compensation for the permanent partial loss of sight of both eyes, holding that there were no grounds for the writ.
After the Commission denied Harris's request for scheduled-loss compensation a district hearing officer determined that the medical evidence failed to establish that Harris had sustained any loss of vision in either eye as a result of the industrial injury. Harris filed a mandamus action requesting an order directing the Commission to reverse its decision. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that some evidence existed to support the Commission's decision.
|
|
Duncan House Charitable Corp. v. Harris County Appraisal District
|
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Docket:
21-1117
Opinion Date: September 1, 2023
Judge:
Per Curiam
Areas of Law:
Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law
|
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court dismissing Duncan House Charitable Corporation's application for a charitable organization exemption, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that Duncan's failure to timely apply for later exemption precluded it from receiving that exemption even if it ultimately qualified for an earlier exemption.
For the 2017 tax year, Duncan applied for a charitable tax exemption covering its fifty percent ownership interest in a Houston historic home. The appraisal district denied the exemption, and the review board denied Duncan's ensuing protest. Duncan filed for judicial review. Thereafter, although Duncan House never applied for the charitable exemption for the 2018 tax year, it protested the district's 2018 appraisal on the grounds that the district court to apply the charitable exemption. The review board denied the protest. Duncan then amended its trial court petition to challenge the denial of the 2018 exemption. The trial court dismissed the 2018 claim for want of jurisdiction, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in holding that Duncan's failure to timely apply for the 2018 exemption precluded it from receiving that exemption even if it ultimately qualified for the 2017 exemption.
|
|
Wahkiakum Sch. Dist. No. 200 v. Washington
|
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Docket:
101,052-4
Opinion Date: September 7, 2023
Judge:
Sheryl Gordon McCloud
Areas of Law:
Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Education Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
In this action, the Wahkiakum School District (WSD) alleged the State of Washington “fail[ed] to amply fund the [WSD]’s needed facilities [and] infrastructure.” WSD argued that this failure violated the Washington Constitution, article IX, section 1. The complaint explained the impact of this lack of ample funding for facilities and infrastructure: “The [WSD] is a poor, rural school district located along the banks of the Columbia River. It has less than 500 students. Approximately 57% of its students are low income. It has less than 3500 registered voters. And the per capita income of its voters is approximately $29,000.” Specifically, the WSD requested that the State pay the cost of rebuilding its elementary, middle, and high schools; it estimated more than $50 million in construction costs. The State moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim (CR 12(b)(6)) and for lack of jurisdiction (CR 12(b)(1)). In support of its motion, the State argued, “[F]unding for school construction and other capital expenditures is governed by entirely different constitutional and statutory provisions that primarily look to local school districts themselves, with the State providing funding assistance. As such, WSD fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted . . . .” It also argued that the court could not award monetary damages because the legislature has not created a private right of action and monetary damages would violate separation of powers principles. The WSD conceded that it failed to file a tort claim form and thus that its claim for monetary damages was barred. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. After review, the Washington Supreme Court concluded the constitution did not include capital construction costs within the category of “education” costs for which the State alone must make “ample provision.” The Court thus affirmed the trial court's decision to grant the motion to dismiss.
|
|
Wolf v. Washington
|
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Docket:
101,477-5
Opinion Date: September 7, 2023
Judge:
Barbara Madsen
Areas of Law:
Civil Procedure, Family Law, Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury, Trusts & Estates
|
At issue in this case is the triggering event for the statute of limitations on childhood sexual abuse actions. Timothy Jones’ estate (Estate) brought negligence and wrongful death claims against the State of Washington. Timothy was born to Jaqueline Jones in 1990. In 2003, Jacqueline lost her home to foreclosure, and Timothy moved in with Price Nick Miller Jr., a family friend. A month later, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) was alerted that Miller was paying too much attention to children who were not his own. After investigating the report, DCYF removed Timothy from Miller’s home based on this inappropriate behavior. In November 2003, Timothy was placed in foster care and DCYF filed a dependency petition. Timothy’s dependency case was dismissed in 2006. Later that year, Timothy told a counselor that Miller had abused him sexually, physically, and emotionally from 1998 to 2006. In 2008, Miller pleaded guilty to second degree child rape connected to his abuse of Timothy and second degree child molestation related to another child. In 2007 or 2008, Jacqueline sued Miller on Timothy’s behalf. The attorney did not advise Timothy or his mother that there may be a lawsuit against the State or that the State may be liable for allowing Miller’s abuse to occur. Sometime in mid-2017, and prompted by a news story about childhood sexual abuse, Timothy and a romantic parter Jimmy Acevedo discussed whether Timothy may have a claim against the State. Acevedo recommended that Timothy consult a lawyer. In fall 2017, Timothy contacted a firm that began investigating Timothy’s case. In June 2018, Timothy committed suicide. Jacqueline was appointed personal representative of Timothy’s estate and filed claims for negligence, negligent investigation, and wrongful death against the State. On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court concluded the statute of limitations for negligence claims begins when a victim recognizes the causal connection between the intentional abuse and their injuries. The court granted summary judgment for the State and dismissed the Estate’s claims as time barred. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, finding no evidence was presented that Timothy made the causal connection between that alleged act and his injuries until August or September 2017, and the Estate filed its claims on March 12, 2020, within RCW 4.16.340(1)(c)’s three-year time period.
|
|
|
|
About Justia Daily Opinion Summaries
|
Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free newsletter service with over 65 newsletters covering every federal appellate court and the highest court in each U.S. state.
|
Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 60+ different practice areas. All daily and weekly Justia Newsletters are free. You may request newsletters or modify your preferences by visiting daily.justia.com.
|
You may freely redistribute this email in whole.
|
About Justia
|
Justia’s mission is to make law and legal resources free for all.
|
|