Lewis v. USA

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 21-30163

Opinion Date: December 18, 2023

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

In this consolidated appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled on a decade-long dispute between landowners Garry L. Lewis and G. Lewis-Louisiana, L.L.C. (together referred to as "Lewis") and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) over the federal jurisdiction of "wetlands" on their Louisiana property under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case involved numerous Supreme Court cases, jurisdictional determinations, federal court cases, and appeals.

Lewis's property was primarily used as a pine timber plantation. In 2013, Lewis requested a jurisdictional determination from the USACE to develop the property, which went unanswered until a formal request two years later. The USACE concluded in 2016 that portions of the property contained wetlands subject to CWA jurisdiction. Lewis appealed, leading to a reconsideration and a substantially unchanged jurisdictional determination in 2017. Lewis then filed suit in federal court, claiming that the Corps' action was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court found the administrative record insufficient to support the conclusion that wetlands on the property met the "adjacency" test or had a "significant nexus" to traditional navigable waters and remanded the case back to USACE for further review.

On remand, USACE revised the data and applied a recently issued regulation. However, the revised determination nearly doubled the alleged wetlands on one of Lewis's property tracts. After another round of litigation and appeals, the case reached the Fifth Circuit, where Lewis argued that under no interpretation of the administrative facts could his property be regulated as "wetlands" subject to the CWA.

The Fifth Circuit agreed with Lewis, drawing upon the Supreme Court's recent decision in Sackett v. EPA which held that the CWA only extends to wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are "waters of the United States" in their own right. The Fifth Circuit found that there was no such connection between any plausible wetlands on Lewis's property and a "relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters," and thus, there was no factual basis for federal Clean Water Act regulation of these tracts.

The court also rejected the government's arguments that the appeal was moot due to the withdrawal of the 2020 jurisdictional determination, and that the case should be remanded to USACE for reevaluation. The court held that the agency's unilateral withdrawal of a final agency action did not render the case moot and that remand was not appropriate because there was no uncertainty about the outcome of the agency's proceedings on remand.

Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Lewis that the tracts in question are not "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act as interpreted by Sackett v. EPA.

Lewis v. USA

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-30387

Opinion Date: December 18, 2023

Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided a case regarding the regulation of two tracts of land in Livingston Parish, Louisiana. The landowners, Garry L. Lewis and G. Lewis-Louisiana, L.L.C. (collectively referred to as "Lewis"), had been contending with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for ten years over the agency's assertion of jurisdiction over alleged "wetlands" on their property under the Clean Water Act.

The case had a complex history, involving two Supreme Court cases, three Approved Jurisdictional Determinations (AJDs), two federal court cases resulting in two remand orders, and two appeals to the Fifth Circuit. Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA controlled the facts of this case and dictated that Lewis' property lacked "wetlands" that had "a continuous surface connection to bodies that are 'waters of the United States' in their own right," such that there was no clear demarcation between "waters" and wetlands. As a result, the property was not subject to federal jurisdiction.

The court noted that Lewis' property, used primarily as a pine timber plantation, was composed of two approximately twenty-acre tracts of "grass-covered, majority dry fields, with gravel logging and timber roads on two sides of each tract." Despite this, the USACE had concluded after numerous site visits that certain percentages of these tracts contained jurisdictional wetlands, thereby restricting Lewis' development plans without a federal permit.

The court rejected the government's arguments that the case was moot following the withdrawal of the 2020 AJD and that further remand was necessary for the USACE to reevaluate the jurisdictional issue. The court held that the voluntary cessation of the allegedly wrongful behavior did not moot the case as there was no reasonable expectation of non-recurrence, and remand was inappropriate as the facts and governing law made it clear that Lewis' property was not subject to federal Clean Water Act regulation.

The court ultimately vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Lewis, confirming that the tracts in question were not "waters of the United States" under the Sackett ruling.

Electric Power Supply Ass'n v. FERC

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 22-3176

Opinion Date: December 21, 2023

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law

In a case involving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Electric Power Supply Association and PJM Power Providers Group (collectively, PJM), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had to address two questions. The first was whether the Chairman of FERC exceeded his authority when he moved for a remand of a ratemaking challenge without the support of any other members of the Commission, and the second was whether FERC's underlying ratemaking decisions were arbitrary and capricious.

The case arose from PJM's request to FERC to raise the reserve price cap for electricity from $850 to $2,000 per megawatt hour and to replace the flat $300 per megawatt hour cap after Step 1 with a downward sloping price schedule. Initially, FERC agreed with PJM that the existing price cap and stepwise demand curve were unjust and unreasonable. However, after a change in the composition of the FERC, the Commission sought a voluntary remand from the D.C. Circuit to reconsider its prior decisions. The D.C. Circuit granted the unopposed motion for remand. On remand, the Commission reversed its previous decision and found PJM's evidence insufficient to show that the price caps for reserves and stepwise demand curve were unjust and unreasonable.

PJM and others sought rehearing before the Commission, citing a procedural irregularity - the Chairman had directed FERC's Solicitor to seek remand without first informing the other Commissioners - and challenging the substance of the agency’s shift in views. The Commission rejected the request for rehearing but issued a modified order, reaching the same result, and reasoning that Chairman Glick had the unilateral authority to make the remand motion.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the Chairman of FERC exceeded his legal authority when he requested a remand in the name of the Commission on his own. The court vacated part of the Commission’s order claiming the Chairman had this unilateral authority and remanded the case back to the Commission to decide what, if anything, it could or would have done differently in response to this legal mistake. The court did not rule on whether FERC's underlying ratemaking decisions were arbitrary and capricious, leaving it to the Commission to first resolve the legal mistake.

PJM Power Providers Grp. v. FERC

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 22-3794

Opinion Date: December 21, 2023

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law

In a dispute involving a power grid operator, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the Chairman of FERC exceeded his authority by seeking a remand of a ratemaking challenge without the support of other Commission members.

The case originated when PJM filed a request to modify its existing rates for electricity reserves, arguing that the existing rates were unjust and unreasonable. Initially, FERC agreed and approved the new rates. However, after a change in FERC's composition and a unilateral decision by the Chairman to request a voluntary remand from the D.C. Circuit for reconsideration, FERC reversed its decision and found PJM's evidence insufficient.

The Sixth Circuit's ruling focused on the procedural irregularity, specifically the Chairman's unilateral decision to seek a remand, which it deemed exceeded his administrative authority. The court stated that a quorum majority must decide the Commission’s policy and dealings with the outside world, and the Chairman acting alone does not meet this requirement. As such, the court vacated the part of FERC's rehearing order that claimed the Chairman had this unilateral authority and remanded the matter back to FERC to address this issue.

The court did not address the substantive issue of whether FERC's reversal on the ratemaking decisions was arbitrary and capricious. It noted that any interested party may renew a petition to challenge that decision after FERC resolves the procedural issue.

Bertaud v. O'Malley

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 22-3084

Opinion Date: December 21, 2023

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Public Benefits

Erik Bertaud, who suffered serious injuries when a tree branch fell on his head, applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income from the Social Security Administration. His application was denied, and he appealed. The Appeals Council remanded the case twice, but after the third denial, Bertaud's request for review was denied, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Bertaud then sought judicial review, arguing that the ALJ had failed to develop the record of his disability, pointing to over 800 pages of new medical evidence. The district court denied Bertaud's motion for summary judgment and affirmed the Commissioner's decision, and Bertaud appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The court held that although an ALJ has a duty to develop a full and fair record, this duty is limited when the claimant is represented by an attorney. The claimant's duty to submit evidence is ongoing and covers any additional related evidence they become aware of. The court noted that Bertaud was represented and his attorney had confirmed that the evidence was complete and supplemented the record when necessary. Therefore, the court concluded that the ALJ did not fail to develop Bertaud's medical record. The court affirmed the district court's decision denying Bertaud's motion for summary judgment and affirming the decision of the Commissioner.

Martin v. Kijakazi

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 22-1972

Opinion Date: December 19, 2023

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Public Benefits

The case involves the plaintiff-appellant, Chris Martin, who suffered a back injury in June 2016 and stopped working. He sought medical attention in February 2018 and was diagnosed with a spine disorder in May 2018. Martin applied for Social Security disability benefits and was awarded supplemental security income after an administrative law judge (ALJ) found him disabled under the Social Security Act's stringent definition. However, he was denied disability insurance benefits because his insured status for those benefits had expired on December 31, 2017, a few weeks before he was found to have been disabled. Martin appealed, arguing that the ALJ should have consulted an additional medical expert to determine whether he was disabled earlier, before his insured status lapsed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that the ALJ did not abuse her discretion in deciding not to consult another medical expert. The court explained that Social Security Ruling 18–01p allows an ALJ to decide whether to consult an additional medical expert to answer that question. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of disability insurance benefits.

Moore v. Western Illinois Correctional Center

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 22-1929

Opinion Date: December 20, 2023

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all federal claims made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, Lamont Moore, was an inmate who filed a suit against a prison guard and the prison where he was subsequently sent to, alleging failure to protect him from another inmate's attack, violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and a conspiracy among the investigating officers to falsify the official report of the incident.

The court found that Moore was unable to demonstrate that the prison guard was aware of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety, a requirement for a successful claim of failure to protect. Moore's testimony indicated that his complaints to the guard about the other inmate were about annoyance and horseplay, not a fear for his safety.

Regarding his ADA claim, the court found that Moore failed to demonstrate that any disability-based discrimination was intentional. Moore complained about the distance to the healthcare unit but never alerted anyone at any prison that he required an accommodation in order to access services. He was able to access every service in prison, albeit more slowly due to his loss of vision in one eye. There was no evidence that any defendant knew that he could not access any services or made a deliberate choice to deny him access to services.

After resolving all of the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

McWhorter v. FAA

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 23-9506

Opinion Date: December 20, 2023

Areas of Law: Aviation, Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Transportation Law

In a case brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Bruce McWhorter, a mechanic, had his certification revoked by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) after it was discovered that he had not replaced certain components of an aircraft's engine despite claiming to have performed a major overhaul. McWhorter appealed the decision to an administrative law judge who affirmed the FAA's decision. McWhorter then sought to appeal this decision to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), but failed to serve the FAA with his notice of appeal in a timely manner. The NTSB dismissed McWhorter's appeal on these grounds. McWhorter subsequently petitioned for a review of the NTSB’s dismissal, but did so 111 days after the NTSB issued its final order, exceeding the 60-day limit prescribed by law.

The court clarified that the 60-day limit for seeking appellate review stipulated in 49 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1) is not a jurisdictional requirement, but rather a claim-processing rule. This means that a petitioner’s failure to comply with this time limit does not affect the court’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal. However, the court found that McWhorter had not established reasonable grounds for the delay in filing his petition for review, as required by the same statute for petitions filed after the 60-day limit. The court determined that the primary blame for the delay was on McWhorter, not on any confusion created by the FAA or the NTSB. Therefore, the court denied McWhorter's petition as untimely.

Soul Quest Church of Mother Earth, Inc. v. Attorney General of the United States

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Docket: 22-11072

Opinion Date: December 18, 2023

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the United States District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) denial of a church's petition for a religious exemption from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The Soul Quest Church of Mother Earth, Inc. petitioned the DEA for an exemption to the CSA so it could lawfully use and handle a sacramental tea known as ayahuasca, which contains a controlled substance, Dimethyltryptamine (DMT). The DEA denied the petition, concluding that the church had not met its burden under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to show that its members' beliefs were sincerely held and that its use of ayahuasca was part of a religious exercise. The DEA also found compelling governmental interests in maintaining public safety and preventing diversion of the tea into improper channels. The DEA's denial of the petition was deemed a final decision made under the CSA, thereby triggering the jurisdictional bar of 21 U.S.C. § 877. The court ruled that because the DEA's decision was made under the CSA, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the denial on the merits. The court also held that Soul Quest's additional constitutional, statutory, and procedural claims were "inescapably intertwined" with the DEA's final decision, making the CSA's jurisdictional bar applicable to those claims as well.

The State of Georgia v. Meadows

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Docket: 23-12958

Opinion Date: December 18, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Election Law, Government & Administrative Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit considered an appeal by Mark Meadows, former White House chief of staff under President Donald Trump, who sought to move his state criminal prosecution to federal court. The state of Georgia had indicted Meadows for crimes related to alleged interference in the 2020 presidential election. Meadows argued that because these actions were taken in his official capacity, they should be heard in federal court according to the federal-officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)). The district court denied this request because Meadows' charged conduct was not performed under the color of his federal office. The court of appeals affirmed this decision. It ruled that the federal-officer removal statute does not apply to former federal officers and even if it did, the alleged actions leading to this criminal action were not related to Meadows’ official duties. The court concluded that the former chief of staff’s role does not include influencing state officials with allegations of election fraud or altering valid election results in favor of a particular candidate, regardless of the chief of staff's role with respect to state election administration. Therefore, Meadows was not entitled to invoke the federal-officer removal statute.

Saline Parents v. Garland

Court: US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Docket: 22-5258

Opinion Date: December 15, 2023

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

In this case, an unincorporated association, Saline Parents, and six individuals sued the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland, alleging that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was unlawfully attempting to silence them and others who opposed progressive curricula and policies in public schools. This lawsuit was in response to a memorandum issued by the Attorney General, expressing concern over the increase in reported incidents of harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff. The memorandum instructed the DOJ staff to investigate the issue and discuss strategies to address it. The plaintiffs argued that their protest activities, which included constitutionally protected conduct and did not involve threats of criminal violence, had been unfairly targeted by the DOJ.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case by the District Court on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue this action. The court agreed with the government's argument that the plaintiffs' lawsuit was not ripe for adjudication, indicating that the plaintiffs' claims were based on hypothetical future events that may not occur. The court also found that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the government had in any way threatened imminent enforcement action against them or had labeled them in a way that impugned their reputations. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claim was based on contingencies and speculation, making the dispute premature for judicial resolution.

PARKERVISION, INC. v. VIDAL

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Docket: 22-1548

Opinion Date: December 15, 2023

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, Patents

The case involves ParkerVision, Inc. appealing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that invalidated one of its patents, U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444 ('444 patent), owned by ParkerVision, Inc., which relates to wireless local area networks (WLANs) that use frequency translation technology. The Board determined that claim 3 of the patent is unpatentable as obvious in light of prior art. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision. The court found that the Board correctly construed the term “storage element” and did not procedurally err in how it treated certain arguments raised by the parties. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the Board's finding that the patent claim was obvious in light of prior art. The court found no violation of ParkerVision's procedural rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and no abuse of the Board's discretion in excluding parts of ParkerVision’s sur-reply.

TORRES v. DHS

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Docket: 22-2003

Opinion Date: December 20, 2023

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Government & Administrative Law

Crispin Torres, a former employee of the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), appealed an arbitration decision which upheld his removal from the agency for unauthorized travel and falsification of certified records. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the arbitrator did not provide substantial evidence for concluding that two key factors, consistency of penalty with similar offenses (Douglas factor 6) and potential for rehabilitation (Douglas factor 10), weighed in favor of Mr. Torres' removal. The court found that the arbitrator failed to fully consider comparator cases where similar misconduct by other ICE law enforcement officers resulted in suspension rather than removal, and did not adequately explain why Mr. Torres had no potential for rehabilitation. The court vacated the arbitrator's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Ronan F. v. State of Alaska

Court: Alaska Supreme Court

Docket: S-18588

Opinion Date: December 15, 2023

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

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska dealt with an appeal against the termination of parental rights of two parents, Elena F. and Ronan F., by the State of Alaska, Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services. The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) had removed the two Indian children from their parents' home due to reported domestic violence and later terminated both parents' rights after two years. The parents appealed, arguing that OCS failed to make active efforts to reunify the family.

The court found that the OCS made active efforts to reunify Elena with her children even in light of her serious mental illness, substance abuse, and her increasingly violent threats and behavior. As such, the court affirmed the termination of Elena's parental rights.

However, the court found that the OCS did not make active efforts to reunify Ronan with his children. The court noted that there was no evidence that two out of three caseworkers assigned to Ronan made any efforts toward his reunification with his children. Therefore, the court reversed the termination of Ronan's parental rights.

Center for Biological Diversity v. Public Utilities Com.

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: A167721(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 20, 2023

Areas of Law: Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law

This case involves a dispute over a tariff adopted by the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) of the State of California that affects the compensation utilities provide to customers for excess electricity generated by renewable energy systems. The tariff, known as the net energy metering (NEM) tariff, previously required utilities to purchase excess electricity from renewable systems at the same price customers pay for electricity. However, utilities complained that this overcompensated the owners of renewable systems and raised the cost of electricity for customers without renewable systems. In response, the California Legislature enacted a law requiring the Commission to adopt a successor tariff that promotes the continued sustainable growth of renewable power generation while balancing costs and benefits to all customers.

Several environmental groups challenged the Commission's newly adopted successor tariff, asserting that it did not comply with various statutory requirements. The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District upheld the Commission's tariff. The court found that the Commission's successor tariff adequately served the various objectives of the law and was based on a reasonable interpretation of its statutory mandate. The court also found that the Commission's decision to value exported energy from renewable systems based on the marginal cost of energy to the utilities was a reasonable approach to fulfilling the law's requirement to balance the equities among all customers. The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the Commission had failed to properly account for the costs and benefits of renewable energy, and that it had improperly favored the interests of utility customers who do not own renewable systems. The court also found that the Commission had properly fulfilled the law's requirement to include specific alternatives designed for growth among residential customers in disadvantaged communities. The court affirmed the decision of the Commission.

Palomar Health v. Nat. Nurses United

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: D080962(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 18, 2023

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

This case is a labor dispute between Palomar Health, a public healthcare district, and unions representing nurses and healthcare workers employed by Palomar Health. In 2021, during negotiations to renew their collective bargaining agreements, union organizers began a leafletting campaign outside Palomar Health’s main hospital and sought to meet with employees inside the hospital. Palomar Health responded by filing a complaint for trespass and unlawful picketing in San Diego Superior Court, seeking to ban the organizers from their facilities. The unions filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), asserting Palomar Health’s attempts to ban their representatives and the civil lawsuit violated the unions’ rights under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. The trial court overruled the unions’ demurrer and denied their motion to strike, maintaining jurisdiction of the state law claims. On appeal, the unions argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the dispute as their activities were arguably protected by the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and that jurisdiction fell exclusively under PERB. The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California, agreed with the unions, finding that Palomar Health’s claims were preempted and therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. The trial court’s order overruling the demurrer was reversed and the matter was remanded with directions to enter an order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, and to dismiss the case on the grounds that it is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of PERB.

Yalung v. State of California

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: F084367(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 21, 2023

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury

In this case, an accident occurred where Sara Spagnolini, a provider under the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, ran a stop sign and crashed into a car driven by Hanah Keren Samson Yalung. Yalung and four of her five children were seriously injured, and one child was killed. Yalung, individually and as an administrator of her deceased daughter's estate and guardian ad litem for her other children, sued the State of California, among others, for Spagnolini's negligence.

The plaintiffs argued that the State was liable for Spagnolini's negligence as her employer or as a joint employer with Spagnolini's recipient under the IHSS program. The Superior Court of Tulare County, however, sustained the State's demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend. The trial court did not find the statutory scheme made the State the employer or joint employer of IHSS providers for all purposes, noting that no cases held the State was an employer for purposes of vicarious liability.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court concluded that the IHSS statutes are incompatible with a finding of joint employment as a matter of law. The court found that while the State administers the IHSS program and has some oversight responsibilities, it does not control or direct the day-to-day tasks or activities of IHSS providers. Accordingly, the State could not be deemed an employer or joint employer for the purposes of vicarious liability.

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. App. Bd.

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: B321864(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 18, 2023

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

The Zurich American Insurance Company sought a writ of mandate against the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) and the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), in the Court of Appeal of the State of California. The issue at hand involved the interpretation of Labor Code section 5909, which states that if the WCAB does not act on a party’s petition for reconsideration of a decision by the workers’ compensation judge within 60 days, the petition is “deemed to have been denied.” CIGA filed a petition for reconsideration more than nine months past the filing date. The WCAB justified its late decision on the basis of an “administrative irregularity” that delayed CIGA’s petition. Zurich argued that the petition had already been denied by operation of law under section 5909. The Court of Appeal agreed with Zurich and held that the language and purpose of section 5909 showed a clear legislative intent to terminate the WCAB’s jurisdiction to consider a petition for reconsideration after the 60 days have passed. As a result, decisions on the petition made after that date are void as they exceed the agency’s jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal granted the writ of mandate, directing the WCAB to rescind its order granting CIGA’s petition for reconsideration and dismissing Zurich as a party defendant from the proceeding.

Odell v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Docket: 259, 2023

Opinion Date: December 15, 2023

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Public Benefits

The case before the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware concerned an appeal by Carrah LeBoon Odell against an order from the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. The order affirmed a decision made by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (UIAB) that upheld decisions by an appeals referee concluding that Odell was liable to repay overpaid unemployment benefits totaling $7,139.

Odell had originally filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits after her employer, Allied Universal, reduced her hours. She later obtained a second job at Rater Labs and reported income from both employers to the Department of Labor. She received traditional unemployment benefits and Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation under the CARES Act for a period. It was later determined that Odell’s total income during the period was too high to qualify for unemployment benefits, and the benefits she received were therefore an overpayment subject to recoupment by the Department.

Odell appealed the overpayment determinations, admitting that she was ineligible for traditional unemployment benefits during the period in question because her income was too high. She requested a waiver of the obligation to repay the benefits, arguing that she met the conditions for a repayment waiver established by the US Department of Labor’s instructions to states regarding processing overpayment waivers under the CARES Act.

The UIAB affirmed the appeals referee’s decision. Odell then appealed to the Superior Court, which also affirmed the Board’s decision.

Odell appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, which concluded that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. The Supreme Court ruled that Odell was liable for repayment, regardless of the cause of the overpayment. Her arguments concerning the Department’s computer system and discovery relating to that system did not establish reversible error. Furthermore, her argument that her repayment obligation should have been waived did not establish reversible error as repayment waivers were not available at the time of the proceedings below.

Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

SAPD v. Fourth Judicial District

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Civil

Docket: 50987

Opinion Date: December 18, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law, Legal Ethics, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

The Idaho Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Idaho State Appellate Public Defender (SAPD) in a case involving the SAPD's statutory duty to arrange for substitute counsel for indigent defendants when a conflict of interest arises. The SAPD filed a direct action against the Fourth Judicial District Court, alleging that the court infringed on the SAPD’s statutory duty to arrange a new attorney for a defendant named Azad Abdullah. The SAPD had identified a conflict of interest in its own office and tried to substitute an attorney from Pennsylvania, but the district court refused the substitution and appointed a new attorney of its own choosing. The Idaho Supreme Court held that the district court had obstructed the SAPD's statutory duty and authority under Idaho Code section 19-5906. The Court ordered the district court's decisions to be vacated, restored the SAPD as attorney of record for the limited purpose of arranging for substitute counsel, and ordered the appointment of a new district judge to preside over Abdullah’s post-conviction proceeding.

Yellowstone Log Homes, LLC v. City of Rigby

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Civil

Docket: 49562

Opinion Date: December 20, 2023

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

In the State of Idaho, Yellowstone Log Homes, LLC ("Yellowstone") owned a rental property in the City of Rigby that was extensively damaged after BorTek Utilities and Construction, LLC bored through a lateral sewer line connected to the rental property. The City of Rigby had failed to mark the service lateral sewer pipe connected to the rental property prior to the excavation. Yellowstone sued the City of Rigby for both negligence per se and common law negligence for failing to mark the service lateral. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Rigby, determining that Yellowstone did not have standing under the Idaho Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Act, and even if it did, it failed to prove the City breached any duty owed to it.

The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City of Rigby. The court found that while the Act does not explicitly provide a private right of action for "end users" like Yellowstone, it does impose a duty on the City to mark underground sewer lines in a public right-of-way, which it did not do. The court also held that whether the City breached this duty by failing to maintain records of the location of service laterals, failing to adequately mark service laterals, or failing to take other precautions to protect customers’ service laterals within the public right of way are questions of fact for a jury to decide. Thus, the court concluded that the City of Rigby owed Yellowstone a duty to act as a reasonable manager of its property under the circumstances.

Murphy v. Commissioner of Correction

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Docket: SJC-13437

Opinion Date: December 14, 2023

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law

In the case at hand, the plaintiff, a civilly committed sexually dangerous person, petitioned the Department of Correction (DOC) for medical parole due to his deteriorating health conditions. The DOC denied his petition based on their policy that civilly committed individuals are ineligible for medical parole under G. L. c. 127, § 119A. The plaintiff sought review of this denial, arguing that his due process rights had been violated. A Superior Court judge allowed his motion for judgment on the pleadings and ordered the DOC to conduct a hearing on the plaintiff's medical parole petition.

However, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reversed the judge's order. The court held that the medical parole statute applies only to committed offenders serving a criminal sentence, not to civilly committed sexually dangerous persons. It further held that sexually dangerous persons may seek release due to terminal illness or physical or mental incapacity under G. L. c. 123A, § 9, and denying them an additional avenue for relief by means of the medical parole statute does not offend substantive due process. The Court concluded that the plaintiff's due process rights were not violated by the DOC's policy that precludes civilly committed sexually dangerous persons from eligibility for medical parole.

Byrd v. State of Missouri

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri

Docket: SC100045

Opinion Date: December 19, 2023

Areas of Law: Business Law, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Non-Profit Corporations

The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the circuit court's ruling and held that the Truly Agreed and Finally Passed House Bill 1606 (2022) (“TAFP HB 1606”) violated the single subject requirement of article III, section 23 of the Missouri Constitution. The bill was initially proposed to reduce the amount of information certain counties had to publish in their financial statements. However, the bill underwent several modifications, including the addition of section 67.2300, which imposed restrictions on the expenditure of state funds for combating homelessness and made unauthorized sleeping and camping on state-owned lands a class C misdemeanor. The appellants, including a group of individuals and a non-profit organization, argued that the addition of section 67.2300 altered the bill's original purpose, introduced a second subject to the bill, and rendered the bill's title unclear, thereby violating the single subject, clear title, and original purpose requirements of the Missouri Constitution. The court agreed, finding that the provisions of section 67.2300 did not fairly relate to or have a natural connection with the bill's general subject of "political subdivisions," but rather related to the completely different subject of homelessness. Consequently, the court declared TAFP HB 1606 invalid in its entirety.

City of Harrisonville v. Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri

Docket: SC100043

Opinion Date: December 19, 2023

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

The Supreme Court of Missouri dismissed an appeal from the City of Harrisonville and Brad Ratliff (collectively, "the City"), who were challenging a ruling by the lower court in favor of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources ("MDNR") and the Board of Trustees for the Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund ("the Fund Board"). The case was initially about the City's requests for certain documents related to the conduct of the executive director of the Fund, which the MDNR and the Fund Board had refused to disclose, citing several Missouri statutes. The City alleged that the MDNR had knowingly violated Missouri's Sunshine Law. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the MDNR and the Fund Board, and the court of appeals affirmed that judgment. The City then appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal due to the City's failure to properly brief any allegations of reversible error, as required by Rule 84.13(a), and the City's failure to comply with the basic requirements of Rule 84.04(d). The court noted that the City's points of contention did not follow the required format and failed to identify any claim of reversible error in the circuit court's judgment. The court also pointed out that there is no right to appeal from a court of appeals decision, and such a claim is categorically unreviewable. Even if the court had decided to review the City's appeal, the circuit court's judgment would have been affirmed because the City only purported to appeal the summary judgment based on one subsection of § 610.021, while summary judgment was granted on two subsections of that statute.

State ex rel. Jackson County, Missouri v. Chamberlain

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri

Docket: SC100304

Opinion Date: December 19, 2023

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

In Missouri, Jackson County and its public officials sought a writ of mandamus to overturn a circuit court's order which had denied their motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Jackson County property owners. The property owners alleged that the County had unlawfully increased assessed property values by failing to provide timely notice of increases and not conducting physical inspections for properties with increases of over 15%. The County argued that the property owners should have exhausted all available administrative remedies before filing the lawsuit.

The Supreme Court of Missouri agreed with the County's argument, stating that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires an aggrieved party to seek available administrative remedies before courts will act. The court found that the County's failure to provide timely notice did not prevent the property owners from pursuing administrative remedies. At the time they filed the lawsuit, they could have exercised their appellate rights to the County's Board of Equalization or the State Tax Commission, but they chose not to. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that because the property owners failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing the lawsuit, the action must be dismissed, making permanent its preliminary writ of mandamus.

State ex rel. Jayla Ruiz-Morales v. Alessi

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri

Docket: SC100069

Opinion Date: December 19, 2023

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Health Law, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court of Missouri ruled in favor of three employees of a medical facility, Jayla Ruiz Morales, John Kimani, and Valarie Johnson, who were sued for wrongful death by the legal guardian of a patient, Ronald Scheer. Scheer, a resident at the St. Louis Developmental Disabilities Treatment Center-St. Charles Habilitation Center, died after his wheelchair's belt constricted his breathing. The employees were accused of failing to adequately supervise Scheer, failing to ensure that his wheelchair's seatbelt and pelvic harness were properly fastened, among other allegations. The employees argued that they were entitled to official immunity, a doctrine that protects public officials from liability for acts of negligence committed during the course of their official duties. The lower court rejected this argument and the employees sought a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court of Missouri.

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the employees were entitled to official immunity. The court found that the tasks they were required to perform were not ministerial (routine or mundane tasks) but required discretion. Tasks such as checking on the patient, repositioning him, and using a seat belt and pelvic harness required the employees to use judgment to determine if Scheer needed additional care, and if so, what care to be administered. Therefore, these tasks were not ministerial and the employees were entitled to official immunity. The court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, barring the lower court from taking further action in the case.

Uhrich & Brown Ltd. Part. v. Middle Republican NRD

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Citation: 315 Neb. 596

Opinion Date: December 15, 2023

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law, Legal Ethics, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

In this case, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision, finding that the Middle Republican Natural Resources District (NRD) violated the due process rights of two landowners, Merlin Brown and Uhrich & Brown Limited Partnership, by having the same attorneys act as both prosecutors and participants in the adjudicatory process of the case. The court held that such a combination of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions in the same individuals posed an intolerably high risk of actual bias, thus, infringing on the landowners' right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal. In this case, the NRD had accused the landowners of violating certain ground water management rules. The case was initially heard by the Board of Directors of the NRD, whose decision to impose penalties on the landowners was informed by the same attorneys who had prosecuted the case on behalf of the NRD. The landowners appealed the Board's decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), leading to the district court's reversal. The NRD then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's ruling.

Matter of Appellate Advocates v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 06466

Opinion Date: December 19, 2023

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Legal Ethics, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

In this case, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) withheld 11 documents from a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request by Appellate Advocates, arguing that the documents were privileged attorney-client communications. These documents had been prepared by DOCCS counsel to train and advise Board of Parole commissioners on how to comply with their legal duties and obligations.

The New York Court of Appeals had to determine whether these documents were rightly withheld under the FOIL exemption for privileged matters. The court found that the documents reflected counsel's legal analysis of statutory, regulatory, and decisional law, and were therefore protected attorney-client communications, prepared to facilitate the rendition of legal advice or services in a professional relationship. The court rejected Appellate Advocates' arguments that disclosure was required under FOIL, noting that the privilege applied to proactive advice to assist the client in compliance with legal mandates, and was not limited to communications triggered by a client's disclosure of confidential information or a direct request for advice. The court also rejected the argument that documents identified as Commissioner training materials were categorically not exempt from disclosure.

The court concluded that the documents were properly withheld under the FOIL exemption for privileged matters as they were privileged attorney-client communications. The court affirmed the order of the Appellate Division.

State v. Fritsche

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Docket: 344PA21

Opinion Date: December 15, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Carolina was tasked with interpreting N.C.G.S. § 14-208.12A, which allows for the removal of a registered sex offender from the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry ten years after initial registration. The defendant, Larry Fritsche, had argued that since he had registered as a sex offender in Colorado more than ten years ago, he was eligible for removal from the North Carolina registry. However, the trial court, using precedent set by the case In re Borden, denied his petition, stating that the ten-year period must be completed in North Carolina. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

Upon review, the Supreme Court also affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court determined that the term "county" in the relevant statutes refers to a county in North Carolina, not any state. The court also noted that the purpose of the Sex Offender Protection Registration Programs was to protect North Carolina communities, and this protection could not be ensured if sex offenders could avoid registering in North Carolina due to time spent on another state's registry. Therefore, the court held that the term "initial county registration" in section 14-208.12A requires ten years of registration in North Carolina, not simply ten years of registration in any state.

Wynn v. Frederick

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Docket: 314PA21

Opinion Date: December 15, 2023

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law

In this case, the Plaintiff, Paul Steven Wynn, had sued Rex Frederick, in his official capacity as a magistrate, and Great American Insurance Company for negligence. The Plaintiff claimed that Frederick was negligent in sending a custody order to UNC Hospitals, instead of the Sheriff's Office, resulting in a delay in the involuntary commitment of the Plaintiff's nephew, who subsequently assaulted and paralyzed the Plaintiff.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that magistrates, as state officials, are not included in the phrase "other officers" under North Carolina General Statute § 58-76-5, which speaks to the waiving of sovereign immunity for certain officials covered by a statutory bond. The court came to this conclusion by examining the structure and history of the statute, which revealed that the statute only encompasses county officers and not state officers. As such, the court found that the statute does not waive the magistrate's sovereign immunity.

Furthermore, the court held that judicial immunity applies to both official and individual capacity claims, contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which had limited the defense of judicial immunity to individual capacity claims only. The court, however, did not decide whether the magistrate's conduct in this case constituted a judicial act, as it found that the claim was independently barred by sovereign immunity. The decision of the Court of Appeals was therefore reversed.

Sargent Cty. Water Resource District v. Beck

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 ND 230

Opinion Date: December 15, 2023

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

In North Dakota, the Sargent County Water Resource District ("District") initiated an eminent domain action to acquire permanent and temporary easements over five properties adjacent to Drain 11 for a drainage project ("Project"). The landowners argued that the project was unlawful because it did not qualify as “maintenance” and exceeded the six-year maximum maintenance levy without the approval of the majority of landowners. The District countered that the landowners’ arguments were foreclosed because they did not appeal the District’s “Resolution of Necessity” and their arguments were barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel. The district court ruled that the landowners’ arguments were not foreclosed and granted condemnation of the property for the Project.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court held the landowners' arguments were not foreclosed and the district court did not err in reaching this conclusion. The Court ruled that the landowners were not precluded by res judicata or collateral estoppel from challenging whether the Project was authorized by law in defending against an eminent domain action.

However, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the district court's finding that the Project was a use authorized by law and that no landowner vote was required for the Project. The Court concluded that the Project as currently designed and approved exceeded the statutory maximum maintenance levy and could not proceed without the approval of the majority of landowners as required by state law. The judgment was therefore reversed.

State ex rel. WTOL Television, L.L.C. v. Cedar Fair, L.P.

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2023-Ohio-4593

Opinion Date: December 20, 2023

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law

The Supreme Court of Ohio found that the Cedar Point Police Department (CPPD), which provides security, policing, and law-enforcement services at the Cedar Point amusement park, is required to respond to valid public-records requests related to those duties. The court concluded that the CPPD is the functional equivalent of a public institution for purposes of the Public Records Act. The court ordered the CPPD to produce any records responsive to the public-records requests by relators WTOL Television, L.L.C., WKYC-TV, L.L.C., and WBNS-TV, Inc. Although the court awarded court costs to the relators, it denied their requests for statutory damages and attorney fees. The case arose after the relators, who are media companies broadcasting news in Ohio, requested records related to a guest injury at Cedar Point and alleged sexual assaults at Cedar Point employee housing. The CPPD, Cedar Fair, and Ronald E. Gilson (the director of security at Cedar Point and the chief of police of the CPPD) failed to provide the requested records, leading to the relators filing a mandamus action.

FRANK BARTEL TRANSPORTATION v. STATE

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 OK 121

Opinion Date: December 19, 2023

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Transportation Law

In a collision involving a sedan owned by Murray State College and a semi truck and trailer owned by Frank Bartel Transportation (FBT), the college employee driving the sedan was killed and the FBT vehicle was destroyed. FBT submitted a claim under the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA) to the State of Oklahoma Risk Management Department of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES), which offered to settle for $25,000. FBT refused the offer, arguing that it sustained additional consequential damages of $68,636.61 for towing, vehicle storage, and vehicle rental. In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma held that these consequential damages fell within the "any other loss" provision of Section 154(A)(2) of the GTCA, and thus FBT's recovery was subject to that statute's $125,000 cap. The court reversed the trial court's decision which found that FBT's damages were all for loss of property and subject to the Section 154(A)(1) cap of $25,000. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

State v. Wilcox

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Docket: S070063

Opinion Date: December 21, 2023

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

The case involves the defendant, Jason Thomas Wilcox, who was taken into police custody for public intoxication under ORS 430.399, a noncriminal statute. During this process, the police seized and inventoried his backpack, discovering a butterfly knife. As Wilcox had a prior felony conviction, he was charged and convicted for being a felon in possession of a restricted weapon under ORS 166.270(2). Wilcox appealed, arguing that the seizure of his backpack was unlawful under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding that the seizure was unlawful, and based its decision on a previous case, State v. Edwards.

The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals had erred in its analysis because it treated the seizure as a criminal one rather than an administrative one. The Court pointed out that when a person or their property is seized under ORS 430.399, the seizure is administrative, not criminal, and such seizures must comply with a different set of constitutional standards. The Court also clarified that the state’s interference with a person’s possessory or ownership interests constitutes a seizure, regardless of whether the person objects to the interference.

The Supreme Court held that the seizure of the backpack was indeed a seizure. However, it did not decide whether the seizure was lawful, instead remanding the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether ORS 430.399, or some other source of authority, authorized the seizure of defendant’s backpack and if so, whether that seizure was effectuated in accordance with the requirements of State v. Atkinson, which set the framework for assessing the constitutionality of an administrative search or seizure.

Department of Corrections v. Lynn

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Docket: 96 MAP 2022

Opinion Date: December 19, 2023

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

In this case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was called upon to determine whether the ascension of an unclassified service employee to a classified service position with higher pay with the same public employer is a promotion under the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) and the Veterans’ Preference Act (VPA). The case arose when Ralph E. Lynn, a classified service employee, and Aaron Novotnak, an unclassified service employee, both veterans, applied for a classified service position with the Department of Corrections (DOC). The Office of Administration (OA) deemed the position a promotion for Lynn and did not apply veterans’ preference, while it deemed the position an appointment for Novotnak and applied veterans’ preference. The DOC selected Novotnak for the position, and Lynn appealed to the State Civil Service Commission.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the ascension of an unclassified service employee to a classified service position with higher pay with the same public employer is not a promotion under the CSRA and the VPA, but rather an appointment. Therefore, it is not discriminatory under section 2704 of the CSRA to award a veterans’ preference to an unclassified service employee seeking an appointment but not to a classified service employee seeking a promotion. The court affirmed the order of the Commonwealth Court in part and reversed in part. The court ruled that Lynn was not entitled to veterans’ preference as he was seeking a promotion, not an appointment. However, Lynn will remain in his position due to a separate issue of technical discrimination that was not reviewed by the court.

Greenwood Gaming v. Dept. of Rev.

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Docket: 76 MAP 2021

Opinion Date: December 19, 2023

Areas of Law: Gaming Law, Government & Administrative Law

In Pennsylvania, a group of casinos, including Greenwood Gaming and Entertainment, Inc., Mountainview Thoroughbred Racing Association, LLC, and Chester Downs and Marina, LLC, sued the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue. The casinos claimed that online games offered by the state lottery simulated slot machines, violating restrictions imposed by the state legislature and infringing on the casinos' share of the online market. The Commonwealth Court disagreed and dismissed their complaint.

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that the Commonwealth Court erred in its interpretation of the law by focusing on individual components of an online lottery game. The Supreme Court held that determining whether an online lottery game violates the prohibition against simulating a slot machine requires a subjective assessment of the game's overall appearance and effect when in play.

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the Commonwealth Court and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to focus on the overall presentation and effect of the challenged game, not on individual features.

Mcgee V. Spencer Quarries

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: INC., 2023 S.D. 66

Opinion Date: December 20, 2023

Areas of Law: Contracts, Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury

Austin McGee was involved in a car accident on a stretch of Highway 45 in South Dakota that was undergoing resurfacing. He claimed that the accident was caused by a negligent failure by the South Dakota Department of Transportation (DOT) and several of its employees to ensure that the contractor responsible for the resurfacing complied with DOT standards and industry practices. The DOT argued that sovereign immunity protected it from the lawsuit. The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision that McGee could sue the DOT and its employees, rejecting the DOT's arguments that McGee lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary of the contract between the DOT and the contractor, and that McGee failed to establish an actionable duty. The court found that the DOT had a ministerial duty under its own Standard Specifications not to exceed the estimated amount of tack coating to be applied each day, but found no ministerial duties relating to the use of precautionary measures. Thus, the Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

BUSBEE v. COUNTY OF MEDINA, TEXAS

Court: Supreme Court of Texas

Docket: 22-0751

Opinion Date: December 15, 2023

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

In Texas, the District Attorney for the 38th Judicial District, Christina Mitchell Busbee, objected to the sale of a property that was purchased with the District's forfeiture funds and was legally owned by Medina County. The District Attorney argued that the County could not sell the property without her consent and that she was entitled to the sale proceeds. The trial court and the court of appeals ruled that the District Attorney did not have standing to make these claims because the relevant statute, Chapter 59, authorizes only the Attorney General to enforce its terms. The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed, holding that the question of whether the District Attorney was authorized to sue under Chapter 59 did not pertain to her constitutional standing to sue, but rather to the merits of her claims. The Court concluded that the District Attorney did have constitutional standing to sue because she had alleged a concrete injury traceable to the County's conduct and redressable by court order. The case was remanded back to the trial court to consider the County's additional jurisdictional challenges.

Nwauzor v. The GEO Grp., Inc.

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Docket: 101,786-3

Opinion Date: December 21, 2023

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

The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that detained workers at a privately owned and operated immigration detention center are considered "employees" under Washington's Minimum Wage Act (MWA), and are thus entitled to receive the state's minimum wage for their work. The court rejected arguments from the detention center operator, The GEO Group, that the detained workers should be exempt from the MWA because they resided and slept at their place of employment. The court also disagreed with GEO's claim that the MWA's government-institutions exemption applied to the detainees because the facility was operated under contract with the federal government. The court found the government-institutions exemption only applies to detainees in public, government-run institutions, and not in privately owned and operated facilities. Finally, the court ruled that a damages award to one party (a class of detainees) does not prevent another party (the State of Washington) from seeking equitable relief in the form of an unjust enrichment award. The case stemmed from lawsuits brought by the State and a class of detainees alleging that GEO's practice of paying detainees less than Washington's minimum wage violated the MWA. After a lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, GEO appealed, leading to the certification of questions to the Washington Supreme Court.