Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

Government & Administrative Law
October 6, 2023

Table of Contents

Dooley v. United States

Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury

US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Trey Wooley v. N&W Marine Towing

Admiralty & Maritime Law, Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Allen v. United States

Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury, Real Estate & Property Law

US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Adrianna Beckler v. Rent Recovery Solutions, LLC

Civil Procedure, Consumer Law, Government & Administrative Law

US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Parents Defending Education v. LinnMar Community School Dist., et al

Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law, Government & Administrative Law

US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL CMTY., ET AL V. LUMMI NATION

Government & Administrative Law, Native American Law

US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Oroville Dam Cases

Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

California Courts of Appeal

Perez v. Galt Joint Union Elementary School District

Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury

California Courts of Appeal

Oakes v. Town of Richmond

Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law

Maine Supreme Judicial Court

S.F. v. Lamar County Department of Child Protection Services, et al.

Family Law, Government & Administrative Law

Supreme Court of Mississippi

Killebrew v. Donohue

Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law

Supreme Court of Nevada

Olvera v. Wynn Las Vegas

Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

Supreme Court of Nevada

Orbitz Worldwide v. Eighth Judicial District Court

Government & Administrative Law

Supreme Court of Nevada

Kirkpatrick v. NDDOT

Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

North Dakota Supreme Court

State ex rel. Cogan v. Industrial Comm'n of Ohio

Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

Supreme Court of Ohio

State ex rel. Levitin v. Industrial Commission

Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

Supreme Court of Ohio

Thomas v. Logue

Government & Administrative Law, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury

Supreme Court of Ohio

Leo v. Oklahoma Water Resources Board

Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

Oklahoma Supreme Court

Bressler v. State, ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division

Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury

Wyoming Supreme Court

Browse upcoming and on-demand Justia Webinars

Government & Administrative Law Opinions

Dooley v. United States

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Docket: 22-995

Opinion Date: October 5, 2023

Judge: Guido Calabresi

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury

While riding a bicycle, Plaintiff ran into an open car door being operated by a recruiter for the U.S. Marines. Plaintiff brought
a claim for negligence against the United States, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. The district court found the United States liable but concluded Plaintiff was also negligent and, therefore, partially liable.

On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the evidence of Plaintiff's negligence was "dubious," and, even if Plaintiff was negligent, the district court failed to make the findings necessary to any holding that the plaintiff’s negligent conduct sufficiently caused the collision so as to make Plaintiff 40% responsible for the damages.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Trey Wooley v. N&W Marine Towing

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-30112

Opinion Date: October 2, 2023

Judge: Cory T. Wilson

Areas of Law: Admiralty & Maritime Law, Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

On August 31, 2020, N&W Marine Towing (N&W) filed in federal district court a verified complaint in limitation, Case No. 2:20-cv-2390 (the Limitation Action), pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 (Limitation Act) and Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. The Limitation Act provides that once a shipowner brings a limitation action “all claims and proceedings against the owner related to the matter in question shall cease.” The district court issued a Stay Order. Wooley, Turn Services (Wooley’s employer), and Royal Caribbean Cruises (RCC) (the owner of the Majesty of the Seas) all filed claims against N&W in the Limitation Action. N&W and Wooley cross-appeal. Seeking to remain in federal court. On cross-appeal, Wooley contends that the outcome of the case was correct, but if this court were to determine that N&W was properly joined, then Wooley contends the district court erred in denying his motion to remand. The main issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in dismissing an improperly joined, nondiverse defendant when the only independent jurisdictional basis for removal was admiralty jurisdiction.
 
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that, like in Flagg, the Louisiana state court here would have had no choice but to dismiss Wooley’s claims against N&W because of the district court’s Stay Order. The district court could have retained jurisdiction over claims against RCC had RCC remained in the case. However the federal court could not retain jurisdiction over claims against a nondiverse defendant (N&W) without some other basis for federal jurisdiction over those claims.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Allen v. United States

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 22-1590

Opinion Date: October 3, 2023

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury, Real Estate & Property Law

Built in 1924, the Edenville Dam near Midland, Michigan, has earthen embankments spanning the Tittabawassee and Tobacco Rivers, forming a 2,600-acre reservoir. In 1998, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a license to Wolverine Power to operate the Dam. FERC directed Wolverine to increase the Dam’s spillway capacity. Wolverine became insolvent. In 2003, Boyce’s predecessor purchased Wolverine’s license. Boyce promised to increase spillway capacity but failed to do so and committed numerous other regulatory violations: unauthorized repairs, dredging, and land-clearing; failing to file a public safety plan; and failing to properly monitor water quality. In 2018, FERC revoked Boyce’s license. Jurisdiction over the Dam passed to Michigan’s Department of Environmental, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), which regulates over 1,000 dams. EGLE inspected the Dam and found it to be in “fair” condition. In May 2020, the Tittabawassee portion of the Dam collapsed following heavy rain, causing another downstream dam to fail. Thousands of residents (including the Allens) were forced to evacuate. Boyce filed for bankruptcy.

The Allens sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act for damages and restitution from the United States, arguing that FERC negligently entrusted Boyce with the Dam. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case. The United States was entitled to sovereign immunity and did not waive that immunity in the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a–823g. Section 803(c) imposes liability on the licensees who build and manage hydropower projects.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Adrianna Beckler v. Rent Recovery Solutions, LLC

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 23-1142

Opinion Date: October 5, 2023

Judge: LOKEN

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Consumer Law, Government & Administrative Law

Debt collector Rent Recovery Solutions (“RRS”) called Plaintiff to collect an alleged $900 debt to her former landlord. In June, without sending the relevant documents to Plaintiff, RRS reported her debt to TransUnion, a credit reporting agency, failing to tell TransUnion that the debt was disputed. Plaintiff commenced this action against RRS, alleging that it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Plaintiff requested an award of $18,810 in attorneys’ fees for work by two attorneys and a paralegal. RRS challenged the fees requested by both attorneys, who submitted sworn declarations and detailed billing records. The district court, applying the lodestar method of calculating an attorney fee award, found that the attorneys’ claimed hourly rates were reasonable, but the hours expended on the case were excessive. The court reduced the claimed attorney hours by fifty percent, exclusive of paralegal work, and awarded Plaintiff $9,480 in attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff’s attorneys accused the district court of departing from the lodestar calculation by imposing a “cap” that violates FDCPA policies and deprives counsel of full compensation for bringing consumer enforcement actions under this complex federal statute.
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court followed the lodestar method, reducing the award based on its determination of the number of attorney hours reasonably expended on litigation. There is a “strong presumption” that the lodestar method represents a reasonable fee. The court wrote that the district court did not abuse its substantial discretion in finding that fifty hours was unreasonable for such a claim.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Parents Defending Education v. LinnMar Community School Dist., et al

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-2927

Opinion Date: September 29, 2023

Judge: COLLOTON

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law, Government & Administrative Law

Parents Defending Education, an association of parents, brought this action to challenge a policy adopted by the Linn Mar Community School District in Iowa. The disputed policy is entitled “Administrative Regulations Regarding Transgender and Students Nonconforming to Gender Role Stereotypes.” The policy sets forth regulations for the District that “address the needs of transgender students, gender-expansive students, nonbinary, gender nonconforming students, and students questioning their gender to ensure a safe, affirming, and healthy school environment where every student can learn effectively.” The parents who seek to participate in this case are anonymous; the pleadings identify them by a letter of the alphabet. The district court determined that Parents Defending failed to establish Article III standing because the organization did not show injury, causation, or redressability on its claims.
 
The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal in part as moot and reversed on one claim. The court concluded that at least Parent G has alleged an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. Parent G asserts that her son wants to “state his belief that biological sex is immutable.” Because of the policy, however, Parent G states that her son remains silent in school “when gender identity topics arise” to avoid violating the policy. This student’s proposed activity “concerns political speech” and is “arguably affected with a constitutional interest.” Thus, Parent G has standing to bring a claim challenging the policy based on the First Amendment. Therefore, Parents Defending has standing as an association to pursue the claim on behalf of a member.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL CMTY., ET AL V. LUMMI NATION

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 21-35812

Opinion Date: October 3, 2023

Judge: Collins

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Native American Law

This is the latest proceeding in a long-running case regarding Indian fishing rights in certain waters in Washington State. This proceeding was instituted by three Indian tribes who sought a ruling that the recognized fishing rights of the Lummi Nation (“the Lummi”) under the 1974 decree do not extend to certain areas. The current dispute centers on a single line in the decree recognizing that “the usual and accustomed fishing places” in which the Lummi have fishing rights “include the marine areas of Northern Puget Sound from the Fraser River south to the present environs of Seattle, and particularly Bellingham Bay.” (“Final Decision I”). The question is whether the specific waters in dispute here—namely, the sheltered waters east of Whidbey Island and south of Fidalgo Island—fall within the Lummi’s historical fishing territory.
 
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Tulalip Tribes, and Upper Skagit Indian Tribe; dismissed as moot a cross-appeal filed by the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (collectively, “S’Klallam”) from the district court’s grant of summary judgment; and dismissed as moot S’Klallam’s appeal of the district court’s denial of the S’Klallam’s motion for reconsideration. Applying the two-step inquiry, the panel concluded that the district court correctly held that the Swinomish, Tulalip, and Upper Skagit carried their burden to warrant a ruling, under Paragraph 25(a)(1) of the 1974 Decree, that Judge Boldt’s “determination of Lummi’s usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations” did not extend to the disputed waters at issue here.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Oroville Dam Cases

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: C093600(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: October 5, 2023

Judge: Renner

Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

This case arose from the California Department of Water Resources’s (DWR) release of water from Lake Oroville down the Oroville Dam’s gated flood control spillway and emergency spillway in February 2017. The Butte County District Attorney filed suit under Fish and Game Code section 5650.11 on behalf of the State seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief against DWR. The statute authorized civil penalties against any “person” who deposited harmful materials into the waters of the state. The statute also authorized injunctive relief. The trial court granted summary judgment for DWR, finding DWR was not a “person” under section 5650.1. On appeal, the State contended the trial court erred in granting DWR’s motion because DWR was a “person” under section 5650.1. Alternatively, the State argued that, even if DWR was not a “person” under this provision, DWR did not negate the State's cause of action with respect to injunctive relief. The Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the judgment.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Perez v. Galt Joint Union Elementary School District

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: C092691(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: October 5, 2023

Judge: Harry E. Hull, Jr.

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury

Plaintiff-appellant Anel Perez filed a personal injury action against the defendant-respondent school district after she was seriously injured while volunteering at an elementary school event. Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of the district on the ground that a resolution passed under Labor Code section 3364.5 in 1968 by the “Governing Board of Galt Joint Union School District of Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties” for the “Galt Joint Union School District” converted plaintiff’s status to that of an employee under the Act, rendering workers’ compensation the sole and exclusive remedy to compensate plaintiff for her injuries. Plaintiff argued that because there was no evidence the district board members were aware of their duties under Labor Code section 3364.5 when she was injured, none of the members were present at the event at which she was injured (a spelling bee), and there was no evidence they knew about the bee, she was not “authorized by the governing board” to act as a volunteer, and she was not performing services under their “direction and control” at the time she was injured. Thus, plaintiff reasoned, the trial court should have rejected the defendant’s affirmative defense that she was covered by the Act and, therefore, that workers’ compensation provided her exclusive remedy. Finding no reversible error in finding plaintiff's exclusive remedy was under the Act, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Oakes v. Town of Richmond

Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Citation: 2023 ME 65

Opinion Date: October 2, 2023

Judge: Connors

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the superior court dismissing Appellant's lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment and damages, holding that the superior court erred in dismissing the suit.

Appellant brought suit against the Town of Richmond challenging tax assessments imposed on her. The superior court dismissed her complaint on the ground that there was no underlying cause of action to support Appellant's request for a declaratory judgment and that she could not collect damages because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment below, holding (1) a taxpayer who has been taxed on property that the taxpayer claims is not taxable because the person does not own that property within the meaning of a municipality's statutory authority to tax may challenge the tax on that property either through the statutory abatement process or a declaratory judgment action; and (2) both counts of Appellant's complaint stated a claim.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

S.F. v. Lamar County Department of Child Protection Services, et al.

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2021-CA-00466-SCT

Opinion Date: September 28, 2023

Judge: Beam

Areas of Law: Family Law, Government & Administrative Law

Child Protection Services (CPS) petitioned to terminate the parental rights of both parents of three minor children who were sexually abused by their father. The mother, S.F., objected and argued that she should not lose her parental rights. The trial court granted CPS’s petition and terminated the rights of both parents. S.F. appealed. The Mississippi Supreme Court found that through the totality of the circumstances and the evidence presented to the youth court satisfied the grounds for termination. Because S.F. lacked protective capacity toward her children, the youth court did not err by finding clear and convincing evidence that termination was appropriate. As such, the Court affirmed.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Killebrew v. Donohue

Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

Citation: 139 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 43

Opinion Date: September 28, 2023

Judge: Lee

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the Administrator of the Division of State Lands of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and dismissing Appellants' petition under Nev. Rev. Stat. 233B.110 for a declaratory judgment that a fee-setting regulation was invalid, holding that there was no error.

At issue was NAC 322.190, a regulation that sets permit fees for the residential use of piers and buoys on navigable waters in Nevada. Appellants petitioned for a declaratory judgment that the fee-setting regulation was invalid. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Division. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Division did not exceed its statutory authority in promulgating NAC 322.195, and Appellants failed to overcome the presumption that the regulation is valid.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Olvera v. Wynn Las Vegas

Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

Citation: 139 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 41

Opinion Date: September 28, 2023

Judge: Bulla

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appeals officer limiting the reopening of Appellant's claim to the lumbar spine and affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's petition for judicial review, holding that the appeals officer properly determined that the reopening of Appellant's claim was warranted only as to the lumbar spine.

Although Appellant was previously treated for injuries to several parts of her body, including her head and back, she sought to reopen her claim due to the worsening condition of her lumbar spine. The appeals officer ordered that Appellant's claim be reopened for the lumbar spine only, and Appellant sought judicial review. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appeals officer properly limited the reopening of the claim to the lumbar spine.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Orbitz Worldwide v. Eighth Judicial District Court

Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

Citation: 139 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 40

Opinion Date: September 28, 2023

Judge: Cadish

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law

The Supreme Court denied writ relief in this writ proceeding, holding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the law requires the district court to dismiss this private action such that writ relief is warranted.

At issue was Nev. Rev. Stat. 357.080(3)(b), which prevents a private plaintiff from maintaining an action under the Nevada False Claims Act (NFCA) if the action is based on the same allegations or transactions that are the subject of a civil action to which the State or a political subdivision is already a party. The Supreme Court held (1) section 357.080(3)(b) does not contain a sequencing requirement and therefore requires dismissal of a private action brought under the NFCA even if the civil action was filed after the private action; (2) section 357.080(3)(b) does not bar a separate private action on behalf of a different governmental entity even where the two suits involve the same allegations or transactions; and (3) Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the law requires the district court to dismiss this private action such that writ relief is warranted.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Kirkpatrick v. NDDOT

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 ND 190

Opinion Date: October 2, 2023

Judge: Daniel J. Crothers

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

William Kirkpatrick appealed a district court judgment affirming the North Dakota Department of Transportation’s suspension of his driving privileges for one year for driving under the influence. Kirkpatrick argued the Department lacked authority to suspend his driving privileges because the arresting officer failed to forward the results of an analytical blood test report performed at the request of the officer to the Department. The North Dakota Supreme Court concurred: Kirkpatrick’s alcohol-related breath and blood test results needed to be provided to the Department, and without them the Department did not have authority to suspend Kirkpatrick’s driver’s license. The Court reversed the district court’s judgment affirming the Department’s decision suspending Kirkpatrick’s driving privileges for one year.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

State ex rel. Cogan v. Industrial Comm'n of Ohio

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2023-Ohio-3567

Opinion Date: October 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 issuing a limited writ of mandamus and ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to determine Appellee's appropriate pre-injury visual baseline and to apply that baseline to his request for compensation, holding that the Commission has discretion to use a claimant's vision as corrected by a hard contact lens as the claimant's pre-injury visual baseline.

Appellee sustained an industrial injury to his right eye and underwent three surgical procedures to address the conditions allowed under his workers' compensation claim. Appellee then sought scheduled-loss compensation under Ohio Rev. Code 4123.57. After staff hearing officer denied Appellee's request Appellee filed a mandamus action arguing that the Commission had abused its discretion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the writ was appropriate to determine Appellee's pre-injury visual baseline and to then use that baseline to determine whether the medical evidence supports an award for total loss of sight under Ohio Rev. Code 4123.57(B).

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

State ex rel. Levitin v. Industrial Commission

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2023-Ohio-3559

Opinion Date: October 4, 2023

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that the Industrial Commission of Ohio did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's request for a violation of specific safety requirements (VSSR) award, holding that there was no error.

Appellant suffered a work-related hand injury while working for Employer and requested an award in addition to her workers' compensation benefits, alleging that her injury was a result of Employer's VSSR violation. The Commission found that Appellant did not commit a VSSR and denied the request for an additional award. The Supreme Court affirmed and denied Appellant's motion for an oral argument, holding that some evidence in the record supported the Commission's decision.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Thomas v. Logue

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2023-Ohio-3522

Opinion Date: October 3, 2023

Judge: Brunner

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the court of claims seeking to recover a portion of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation (BWC)'s subrogated award in this case, holding that the BWC's attempted expansion of subrogation was unlawful.

The BWC allowed Lamar Thomas's workers' compensation claim for some conditions he received in an industrial accident caused by a third party but disallowed an additional claim for other conditions linked to the workplace accident based on a second opinion rendered during a medical review. When Thomas settled his personal injury case against a third-party tortfeasor, the BWC recouped through subrogation the cost of the medical review it had used to deny Thomas's additional claim. Thomas brought suit against the BWC. The court of claims denied the complaint via judgment on the pleadings. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the medical review the BWC obtained was not an expense recoverable in subrogation.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Leo v. Oklahoma Water Resources Board

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 OK 96

Opinion Date: October 3, 2023

Judge: Kane

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

Petitioners Debbie Leo d/b/a Miller Lake Retreat, LLC, Larinda McClellan, Louise Redman Trust, Walter Myrl Redman, and Kenneth Roberts appealed a district court's order affirming the Oklahoma Water Resources Board's (the OWRB) final order granting a permit to The City of Oklahoma City (the City) to divert stream water from the Kiamichi River in Pushmataha County, Oklahoma. The City cross-appealed the district court's order denying its motion to dismiss Petitioners' petition for judicial review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The City contended Petitioners' failure to name the City as a respondent in their petition for judicial review of the OWRB's order was a fatal, jurisdictional flaw under the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act, (OAPA). The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that 75 O.S.2011, § 318(B)(2) required that the agency (here, the OWRB) be named as a respondent in the caption of the petition for review for the district court to acquire jurisdiction to review a final agency order. However, Section 318(B)(2) of the OAPA did not require the City be named as a respondent in the petition. Therefore, the district court's order finding it had jurisdiction to review the final agency order was affirmed. The Supreme Court further held the district court properly applied the Four Points of Law in O.A.C. § 785:20-5-4, including using the OWRB's calculation of available stream water and evaluation of beneficial use, which was based on substantial evidence in the record, with no findings of prejudicial error. Therefore, the district court's order affirming the OWRB's order was affirmed.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Bressler v. State, ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 WY 94

Opinion Date: September 29, 2023

Judge: Boomgaarden

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the Medical Commission to uphold the determination of the Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division that Jon Bressler was not entitled to compensation for three physical therapy sessions in connection with his work-related injury to his right arm, holding that there was no error.

The Supreme Court affirmed the order upholding the three final determinations of the Division denying Bressler physical therapy benefits, holding that the Commission's conclusion that Bressler's continued physical therapy was not reasonable and necessary medical care for his work-related injury was supported by substantial evidence.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Browse upcoming and on-demand Justia Webinars

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.

New on Justia Onward

Want instant updates? Get Notified

News & Notes From Google Local Services Ads: October 2023

Justia Amplify Team

onward post

Another month has come and gone, and we have updates about Google LSAs fresh from the Google Partner newsletter! Check out this post to stay in the know about what matters most for lawyers in the latest edition of this exclusive newsletter from Google.

Read More

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn LinkedIn Justia

Unsubscribe from this newsletter

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043


Unsubscribe from all Justia Newsletters