|
Singh v. Garland
|
|
Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Docket:
21-1665
Opinion Date: November 27, 2023
Judge:
Montecalvo
Areas of Law:
Government & Administrative Law, Immigration Law
|
|
The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) denial of Petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief.
Petitioner, who was from Nepal, sought relief based on claims that she experienced past persecution and had a well-founded fear of future persecution at the hands of Maoist insurgents on account of political opinion and membership in a particular social group, in particular, her nuclear family. The IJ granted Petitioner's application for voluntary departure but denied her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the lower agencies did not err in concluding that Petitioner failed to establish that the Nepali government was unwilling or unable to protect her.
|
|
|
|
State of Ohio v. Becerra
|
|
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Docket:
21-4235
Opinion Date: November 30, 2023
Judge:
Larsen
Areas of Law:
Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
|
In 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule governing the Title X program, which makes grants to assist in the establishment and operation of family planning projects. The Rule interpreted section 1008 of Title X, which bars funds appropriated under the Title X grant program from being “used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” States challenged the 2021 Rule’s elimination of a prior HHS rule that required grantees to maintain strict physical and financial separation between Title X programs and abortion-related services they might provide and the Rule’s requirement that Title X projects provide referrals for abortion services when requested by the patient.
The Supreme Court has held (“Rust,” 1991) that section 1008 is ambiguous as to program integrity and referrals for abortion and that Chevron deference applies. The Sixth Circuit held Ohio is entitled to a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from enforcing the 2021 Rule’s program integrity rules in Ohio in a manner that would affect the allocation of funding in Ohio. While the doctrinal landscape undergirding Rust has shifted significantly since it was decided, Rust, and its application of Chevron, remain binding. The 2021 Rule’s referral requirement is not an impermissible interpretation of section 1008 but the program-integrity requirements do not represent a permissible interpretation.
|
|
|
|
White v. Payne
|
|
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Citation:
2023 Ark. 171
Opinion Date: November 30, 2023
Judge:
Rhonda K. Wood
Areas of Law:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
|
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding that Petitioner had failed to state a ground for the writ.
Petitioner pled guilty to rape and aggravated robbery and was sentenced as a habitual offender. In his habeas corpus petition, Petitioner alleged that he was innocent of the offense of rape, that the State maliciously applied the habitual offender statute in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that the Arkansas statute requiring that he serve 100 percent of his sentence was unconstitutional. The circuit court found that the claims were not cognizable in habeas and noted that parole eligibility falls within the domain of the executive branch. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err.
|
|
|
|
Stufkosky v. Department of Transportation
|
|
Court: California Courts of Appeal
Docket:
B317192(Second Appellate District)
Opinion Date: November 28, 2023
Judge:
CODY
Areas of Law:
Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury, Products Liability
|
|
Appellants’ father died in a multi-car accident caused by a deer crossing State Route 154 (SR-154). Appellants sued respondent California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and others for negligence. They alleged the road constituted a dangerous condition under Government Code section 835. The trial court found that design immunity applied to Caltrans and granted summary judgment. Appellants contend the trial court erred when it found design immunity was a complete defense to Caltrans’ liability. They also contend the court failed to address a separate basis of liability, failed to warn when it ruled on the motion for summary judgment.
The Second Appellate District affirmed. Appellants’ theory of the case, in sum, is that Caltrans designed SR-154 without certain specific features they contend would have made the highway safer. The court explained that Caltrans need not produce additional evidence to prove this point. A traffic engineer attested to the applicable design standards and how Caltrans addressed the dangers posed by deer entering traffic and vehicles crossing the median. This constitutes substantial evidence of advance approval. The court wrote that it would not second-guess the decision of Caltrans to include or omit certain design features. The court concluded that substantial evidence showed that a reasonable public employee would have adopted the SR-154 design plans, even without the features and changes Appellants contend Caltrans should have considered and included.
|
|
|
|
Hart v. Illinois State Police
|
|
Court: Supreme Court of Illinois
Citation:
2023 IL 128275
Opinion Date: November 30, 2023
Judge:
Cunningham
Areas of Law:
Government & Administrative Law
|
|
The plaintiffs alleged that the Illinois State Police (ISP), violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/1) by failing to provide them with documents relating to their Firearm Owners’ Identification (FOID) cards under the Firearm Owner’s Identification Card Act (430 ILCS 65/0.01). ISP had denied the plaintiffs’ requests for the documents, finding the requested information exempt from disclosure under FOIA section 7.5(v). The circuit court ordered ISP to produce each plaintiff’s FOID card application and to produce copies of letters it had previously sent to the plaintiffs in which it informed them it was revoking their FOID cards. After consolidating the cases, the appellate court affirmed.
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. Section 7.5(v) states that the “names and information” of people who have applied for or received FOID cards are exempt from disclosure under FOIA; it makes no distinction between another person’s FOID card information and one’s own information. An individual may not consent to the disclosure of his FOID card information under FOIA. The plaintiffs may obtain their FOID card applications and revocation letters through the Firearms Services Bureau, the division of ISP that processes FOID card applications and determines FOID card eligibility but FOIA is not the proper means for obtaining the requested information.
|
|
|
|
Pinkston v. City of Chicago
|
|
Court: Supreme Court of Illinois
Citation:
2023 IL 128575
Opinion Date: November 30, 2023
Judge:
Holder White
Areas of Law:
Civil Procedure, Class Action, Government & Administrative Law
|
|
The Municipal Code of Chicago included provisions concerning public parking, including parking meters. The fine for exceeding the time purchased at a parking meter differs depending on whether the violation occurs in the “central business district” or the “non-central business district.” At the time of the alleged violation, failure to comply with the parking meter regulations in the central business district resulted in a $65 fine. A $50 fine applied to similar violations outside the central business district.
Pinkston filed a class-action, alleging that Chicago had engaged in the routine practice of improperly issuing central business district tickets for parking meter violations. The circuit court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings and voluntarily paying his fine. The appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal. The underlying issue—whether Pinkston received an improper parking ticket—is routinely handled at the administrative level; an aggrieved party cannot circumvent administrative remedies “by a class action for declaratory judgment, injunction or other relief.”
|
|
|
|
Cities Management, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue
|
|
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Docket:
A23-0222
Opinion Date: November 22, 2023
Judge:
Moore
Areas of Law:
Business Law, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law
|
|
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Minnesota Tax Court affirming the assessment of the Commissioner of Revenue assessing tax on an apportioned share of Cities Management, Inc.'s (CMI) income from the sale of the S corporation, holding that the income from the corporation's sale was apportionable business income.
CMI, which did business in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and its nonresidential partial owner filed Minnesota tax returns characterizing the sale of CMI's goodwill as income that was not subject to apportionment by the State under Minn. Stat. Ann. 290.17. The Commissioner disagreed and assessed tax on an apportioned share of the corporation's income from the sale. The tax court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that CMI's income did not constitute "nonbusiness" income under section 290.17, subd. 6 and may be constitutionally apportioned as business income.
|
|
|
|
Gray v. Hawthorn Children's Psychiatric Hospital
|
|
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Docket:
SC99995
Opinion Date: November 21, 2023
Judge:
Mary R. Russell
Areas of Law:
Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury
|
|
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission finding that Maryann Gray's applications for review were timely filed pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 287.480 and overruling Hawthorn Children's Psychiatric Hospital's motion to strike, holding that the Commission did not err in finding that Gray's applications were timely filed.
Gray, a registered nurse at Hawthorn, filed applications for review of the denial of her claims for injuries sustained during her employment. After a hearing, the Commission found Gray timely filed her applications and affirmed the denial of benefits as to a 2012 injury but ordered Hawthorn to pay Gray partial permanent disability benefits for 2013 and 2014 injuries. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission did not err in finding that Gray's applications were timely filed under section 287.480.
|
|
|
|
Harper v. Springfield Rehab & Health Care Center
|
|
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Docket:
SC100006
Opinion Date: November 21, 2023
Areas of Law:
Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury
|
|
The Supreme Court affirmed the final award of the labor and industrial relations commission affirming and adopting an administrative law judge's award of permanent total disability benefits to Jannie Harper under the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, holding that the commission's decision was supported by competent and substantial evidence.
Harper filed a claim for workers compensation against Springfield Rehab and Health Center and Premier Group Insurance Company Corvel Enterprise Company (collectively, Springfield Rehab). The commission awarded Harper permanent and total disability benefits, finding that Harper suffered a compensable injury arising from a workplace accident. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that competent and substantial evidence supported the commission's final award of permanent total disability compensation and future medical care.
|
|
|
|
Mont. Environmental Information Center v. Westmoreland Rosebud Mining
|
|
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Citation:
2023 MT 224
Opinion Date: November 22, 2023
Judge:
Mike McGrath
Areas of Law:
Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law
|
|
The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court ruling in favor of the Montana Environmental Information Center and Sierra Club (collectively, Conservation Groups) and vacating the Montana Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) permit for Westmoreland Rosebud Mining, LLC's proposed coal mine expansion, holding that the Board of Environmental Review (Board) made several errors when it upheld DEQ's findings.
Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court erred in concluding that reversal of the burden of proof was prejudicial error; (2) the Board committed reversible error in limiting the Conservation Groups' evidence and argument; (3) the district court erred in determining that it was reversible error to admit certain testimony as proper rebuttal; (4) the Board erred when it concluded that no water quality standard violation could occur; (5) the Board properly considered cumulative impact of mining activity in its analysis; (6) the Board properly relied on evidence regarding aquatic life; (7) the attorney fee award was improper; and (8) the district court erred in ruling that the Board was properly included as a party on judicial review.
|
|
|
|
Highroller Transportation, LLC v. Nev. Transportation Authority
|
|
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Citation:
139 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 51
Opinion Date: November 30, 2023
Judge:
Westbrook
Areas of Law:
Government & Administrative Law, Transportation Law
|
|
The Supreme Court held that in contested cases before the Nevada Transportation Authority (NTA), arguments not raised during the administrative proceedings are generally waived and that the NTA need not consider arguments raised for the first time at the general session.
Appellant received two administrative citations for improperly staging its vehicles at its casino without a charter order, in violation of Appellant's certificate restriction and NAC 706.360. Appellant agreed to the fines, and a hearing officer recommended that the NTA accept Appellant's stipulations and enter the fines against Appellant. Appellant petitioned for judicial review, arguing that its certificate restriction was federally preempted. The district court concluded that the certificate was related to safety and thus not federally preempted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's conclusory assertion of preemption at the NTA general session was insufficient to establish that the NTA lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce Appellant's certification restriction; and (2) Appellant waived its preemption argument by entering into the stipulation.
|
|
|
|
Matter of Didier
|
|
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Citation:
2023 ND 218
Opinion Date: November 24, 2023
Judge:
Jerod E. Tufte
Areas of Law:
Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
|
Lawrence Didier appealed an order and judgment denying his discharge from civil commitment. Between 1988 and 2008, Didier was convicted of gross sexual imposition and indecent exposure, and was twice convicted of sexual assault. After a State petition, the district court ordered Didier committed as a sexually dangerous individual in November 2010 under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3. Didier petitioned for an annual review hearing under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18 seeking discharge from commitment. Dr. Deirdre D’Orazio, Ph.D., a doctor of clinical and forensic psychology, submitted a report for the North Dakota State Hospital stating her expert opinion was that Didier remained a sexually dangerous individual. The district court held a hearing and subsequently issued an order and judgment denying Didier’s petition for discharge from civil commitment. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the trial court's finding by clear and convincing evidence that Didier had serious difficulty controlling his behavior based on both his past and present conduct was not clearly erroneous, and was supported by the record. Accordingly, the distric court's order and judgment were affirmed.
|
|
|
|
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm'n
|
|
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation:
2023-Ohio-4271
Opinion Date: November 27, 2023
Judge:
Per Curiam
Areas of Law:
Constitutional Law, Election Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
|
In this case addressing the General Assembly districting plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission in September 2023 the Supreme Court granted motions to dismiss brought by Petitioners, who filed motions for leave to file objections instanter to the plan and denied motions to vacate and for leave to file objections, holding that dismissal was warranted.
The Commission adopted a new redistricting plan in September 2023 by a unanimous vote. Petitioners moved for leave to file objections. Respondents, members of the Commission, moved to dismiss the cases and to vacate the court's orders declaring the districting plan adopted by the General Assembly in September 2021 as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court granted the motions to dismiss, denied the motions to vacate as moot, and denied the motions for leave to file objections to the September 2023 plan, holding that now that the Commission has adopted a plan with bipartisan support, the facts before the Court bore no resemblance to the allegations in Petitioners' complaints.
|
|
|
|
State ex rel. Ames v. Ondrey
|
|
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation:
2023-Ohio-4188
Opinion Date: November 28, 2023
Judge:
Per Curiam
Areas of Law:
Government & Administrative Law
|
|
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition seeking a writ of prohibition to bar Judge David M. Ondrey of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas from exercising jurisdiction over a hearing to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees that Appellant owed based on conduct he committed that the judge found frivolous, holding that there was no error.
Appellant sued the Geauga County Republican Central Committee seeking an injunction. Judge Ondrey granted the committee's motion to dismiss. The committee then filed a motion seeking fees it incurred in defending against Appellant's "frivolous" lawsuit. Thereafter, Appellant filed an original action seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent the judge from conducting the hearing on the question of attorney fees. In granting Judge Ondrey's motion to dismiss the court of appeals rejected Appellant's contention that Judge Ondrey exceeded his subject matter jurisdiction by failing strictly to comply with the procedures prescribed by Ohio Rev. Code 2323.51. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Judge Ondrey did not patently or unambiguously exceed his jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
State ex rel. Block v. Industrial Commission of Ohio
|
|
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation:
2023-Ohio-4184
Opinion Date: November 22, 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 Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus requiring the Industrial Commission of Ohio to award him a scheduled award of permanent partial disability (PPD) compensation under Ohio Rev. Code 4123.57(B) for the loss of the use of his right hand, holding that the court of appeals correctly denied the writ.
Appellant was injured during the course of his employment as a laborer when he fell from a roof onto concrete below. A district hearing officer granted Appellant's request for scheduled-loss compensation, but a staff hearing officer vacated that order on appeal. The court of appeals denied Appellant's ensuing complaint for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that some evidence supported the commission's decision denying Appellant's request for compensation for the loss of the use of his right hand, and the commission did not abuse its discretion.
|
|
|
|
State ex rel. Clark v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation & Correction
|
|
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation:
2023-Ohio-4183
Opinion Date: November 22, 2023
Judge:
Per Curiam
Areas of Law:
Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law
|
|
The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus ordering the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to produce a copy of a kite that he alleged he had exchanged with the "cashier" of the North Central Correctional Complex (NCCC), where Relator was incarcerated, holding that Relator was entitled to the writ.
According to Relator, an NCCC inspector denied Relator's kite request on the ground that she was not responsible for printing kites. After the department denied Relator's grievance Relator brought this mandamus action seeking production of the kite. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding (1) Relator showed that he had a clear legal right to the requested relief and that the department had a clear legal duty to provide it; and (2) Relator was not entitled to statutory damages.
|
|
|
|
Verizon Virginia LLC v. SCC
|
|
Court: Supreme Court of Virginia
Docket:
230400
Opinion Date: November 30, 2023
Judge:
Charles S. Russell
Areas of Law:
Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Transportation Law
|
|
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the State Corporation Commission dismissing Verizon Virginia LLC's petition for a declaratory judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Verizon's petition pursuant to Va. Code 33.2-1815(B) and 33.2-1821.
Verizon, a telecommunications company, filed a petition for a declaratory judgment with the Commission requesting a declaration that either Capital Beltway Express LLC (CBE) or The Lane Construction Corporation was responsible for costs pursuant to section 33.2-1815(B) to relocate some of Verizon's utility facilities, as required by the Virginia Department of Transportation in the underlying project to extend portions of the I-495 express lanes. The Commission dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Verizon appealed, arguing that sections 33.2-1815(B) and 33.2-1821 granted the Commission jurisdiction to resolve which party was responsible for the costs of the utility relocations necessitated by the project. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Verizon's petition.
|
|
|
