National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo

Court: US Supreme Court

Docket: 22-842

Opinion Date: May 30, 2024

Judge: Sonia Sotomayor

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

The case involves the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS). The NRA alleged that Vullo violated their First Amendment rights by pressuring regulated entities to disassociate from the NRA and other gun-promotion advocacy groups. The NRA claimed that Vullo threatened enforcement actions against those entities that refused to disassociate, thereby stifling the NRA's pro-gun advocacy.

The District Court initially denied Vullo's motion to dismiss the NRA's First Amendment damages claims, holding that the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo's actions could be interpreted as a veiled threat to regulated industries to disassociate with the NRA or risk DFS enforcement action. However, the Second Circuit reversed this decision, concluding that Vullo's alleged actions constituted permissible government speech and legitimate law enforcement, not unconstitutional coercion. The Second Circuit also held that even if the complaint stated a First Amendment violation, the law was not clearly established, and so Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity.

The Supreme Court of the United States, however, vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit. The Supreme Court held that the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA's advocacy. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

US v. Mathis

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 21-4578

Opinion Date: May 29, 2024

Judge: Quattlebaum

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves Daniel Lamont Mathis, who was convicted of multiple offenses, including Hobbs Act robbery, racketeering, and violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity, all in connection with the carjacking, kidnapping, and execution-style murder of a Virginia police officer. Initially, Mathis was sentenced to four concurrent life sentences and a consecutively imposed term of 132 years’ imprisonment. However, after an appeal and the passage of the First Step Act of 2018, which amended the sentencing structure for second or subsequent convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the district court resentenced Mathis to four concurrent life sentences, plus 48 years’ imprisonment.

The district court also set forth mandatory and discretionary conditions of supervised release. One of the discretionary conditions was that Mathis would be subject to warrantless search and seizure to ensure compliance with these conditions. However, the written judgment included additional language, stating that Mathis must warn any other occupants that the premises may be subject to searches pursuant to this condition.

Mathis appealed, arguing that the additional language in the written judgment constituted error under United States v. Rogers and United States v. Singletary. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with Mathis, finding that the requirement to warn other occupants was inconsistent with the orally pronounced condition. The court held that this discrepancy constituted reversible error under Rogers and Singletary. As a result, the court vacated Mathis' sentence and remanded the case for a full resentencing.

Bevill v. Wheeler

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-40321

Opinion Date: May 30, 2024

Judge: KING

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law

In 2017, Terry Bevill, a captain of the Quitman Police Department, signed an affidavit supporting a motion to transfer venue in a criminal case against his friend and former colleague, David McGee. Bevill's affidavit alleged potential bias in the local justice system, including personal relationships between the sheriff, the district attorney, and the presiding judge. Following an investigation, Quitman Mayor David Dobbs terminated Bevill's employment, concluding that Bevill's affidavit violated two police department policies. Bevill filed a lawsuit claiming First Amendment retaliation and conspiracy to retaliate against him for his speech.

Previously, the district court denied motions to dismiss the case filed by Sheriff Castloo, District Attorney Wheeler, and Judge Fletcher, who claimed qualified immunity. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed this decision. Now, the same court is reviewing the district court's denial of the defendants' motions for summary judgment.

The court affirmed the district court's decision. It found that Bevill spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern when he submitted his affidavit. The court also held that Bevill's interest in his speech outweighed the government's interest in the efficient provision of public services. The court concluded that Bevill's constitutional rights were clearly established, and the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court also held that District Attorney Wheeler was not entitled to prosecutorial immunity. The court noted that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's finding that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to infer that the defendants conspired to terminate Bevill's employment in retaliation for his speech.

Thryv v. National Labor Relations Board

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-60132

Opinion Date: May 24, 2024

Judge: Oldham

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

The case involves Thryv, Inc., a company that had a dispute with the union representing some of its sales employees. The union complained to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging that Thryv engaged in several unfair labor practices. The NLRB agreed with the union and ordered Thryv to take significant steps to remedy the alleged violations. Thryv petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review.

Previously, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the NLRB's General Counsel in part and Thryv in part. The ALJ agreed with the General Counsel that Thryv failed to respond to the Union’s information requests, constituting six unfair labor practices. However, the ALJ disagreed with the General Counsel that Thryv’s layoffs violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), finding that Thryv had bargained in good faith.

The NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s finding that Thryv violated the NLRA by failing to comply with the Union’s information requests. However, it disagreed with the ALJ about the layoffs and held them unlawful. The NLRB held that Thryv had an obligation to bargain with respect to the layoffs and that Thryv breached that obligation by presenting the layoffs as a fait accompli and withholding information from the Union that the Union needed to bargain effectively.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted Thryv’s petition and vacated the NLRB’s order in part. The court disagreed with the NLRB's conclusion that Thryv's layoffs violated the NLRA. The court held that Thryv was permitted to implement its last best, final offer (LBFO) upon reaching an impasse with the Union. The court found that Thryv complied with the terms of the LBFO, which included providing the Union with thirty days’ notice before initiating layoffs, providing the Union an opportunity to discuss the layoffs, and offering severance payments to the affected employees. Therefore, the court concluded that Thryv's layoffs were lawful so long as Thryv and the Union remained at overall impasse on the date the layoffs occurred. The court also enforced the NLRB’s order requiring Thryv to cease and desist from failing and refusing to furnish the Union with requested information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its functions as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees.

United States v. Woods

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-20452

Opinion Date: May 28, 2024

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

Darion Benjamin Woods pleaded guilty to damaging the property of a foreign official in the United States. Woods and his co-defendant broke into the British Consul General’s family home in Houston, Texas, stealing various items and causing over $50,000 in damages. Woods was arrested and charged with one count of damaging property occupied by a foreign official. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. The presentence investigation report calculated Woods’s Guidelines imprisonment range at 12 to 18 months. Woods objected to the report, seeking a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

The district court awarded Woods’s requested two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility and calculated the Guidelines range at 8–14 months. However, the court varied upwards and sentenced Woods to 30 months in prison. The court concluded that this sentence was necessary to satisfy the 3553(a) factors and to protect the community given Woods’s prior criminal history. The court also ordered Woods to pay $56,636.15 in restitution and imposed a 3-year term of supervised release. Woods timely appealed, arguing that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable and that the condition in the written judgment that he must “refrain from the excessive use of alcohol” conflicts with the oral pronouncement that “while in the program, he’s not to consume alcohol excessively.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Woods to 30 months in prison, which was above the Guidelines range. The court also found that the written condition of supervised release that Woods must "refrain from the excessive use of alcohol" conflicted with the oral pronouncement that "while in the program, he’s not to consume alcohol excessively." The court modified the sentence to reflect that while Woods is in the drug-treatment program, he’s not to consume alcohol excessively.

United States v. Garrett

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 23-1256

Opinion Date: May 29, 2024

Judge: Kelly

Areas of Law: Agriculture Law, Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law, Insurance Law

James and Levi Garrett, a father and son farming duo in South Dakota, were found guilty by a jury of making false statements in connection with federal crop insurance. The Garretts had participated in a federal crop insurance program, administrated by Crop Risk Services (CRS) and backed by the Risk Management Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). They had obtained insurance for sunflower crops in 2018, and James had obtained insurance for a corn crop in 2019. The Garretts were accused of falsely certifying the number of acres of sunflowers and corn they planted in 2018 and 2019 respectively, and subsequently reporting harvest losses to CRS.

The case went to trial in October 2022. The jury heard from several witnesses and examined dozens of exhibits. At the conclusion of the trial, James was convicted on two counts of making a false statement in connection with insurance for sunflower and corn crops, and Levi was convicted on one count of making a false statement in connection with insurance for a sunflower crop. The Garretts moved for judgment of acquittal, and in the alternative, a new trial, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions. The district court denied their motion.

The Garretts appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, challenging the district court’s evidentiary rulings and its denial of their post-trial motions. They argued that the district court erred in admitting certain evidence and excluding others, and that there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the trial record supported the jury verdict and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in denying the Garretts' post-trial motions.

Watkins v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-3248

Opinion Date: May 29, 2024

Judge: Grasz

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law

Sarah Watkins filed a lawsuit against the City of St. Louis, Missouri, and six individual police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers used excessive force during a routine traffic stop. Watkins was stopped for a traffic violation near St. Louis Lambert International Airport. After she was asked to step out of her car, she was handcuffed and allegedly subjected to verbal abuse, forced into a vehicle, pepper-sprayed, and repeatedly hit on the leg with a baton. Watkins was later treated for injuries to her legs, face, and body.

The district court dismissed Watkins's claims, ruling that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on her Fourth Amendment excessive force claims. The court also dismissed the claims against the City, stating that Watkins failed to provide sufficient facts to state a claim for municipal liability under § 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the dismissal of Watkins's claims. The court found that Watkins had sufficiently alleged a violation of her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. The court also determined that this right was clearly established at the time of the traffic stop. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of Watkins's Fourth Amendment excessive force claims against the individual officers. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Watkins's § 1983 claims against the City, as she had not alleged sufficient facts to support the existence of an unconstitutional policy or custom.

Bainbridge Fund Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina

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

Docket: 23-7112

Opinion Date: May 24, 2024

Judge: Henderson

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, International Law

The case involves Bainbridge Fund Ltd. (Bainbridge), which sought to attach property owned by the Republic of Argentina (Argentina) in partial satisfaction of a judgment entered against Argentina in 2020. The property in question, the Chancery Annex, was a building owned by Argentina in Washington, D.C. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) stipulates that the property of a foreign sovereign cannot be attached unless the sovereign waives immunity and the property is used for commercial activity in the United States. The district court denied Bainbridge’s application after finding that the property in question is not used for commercial activity.

Previously, in the Southern District of New York, Bainbridge obtained a judgment against Argentina for $95,424,899.38, arising out of Argentina’s default on a bond owned by Bainbridge. The bond contained a waiver of sovereign immunity by Argentina. Bainbridge sought to attach and execute upon the Chancery Annex to satisfy the judgment in part.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Bainbridge’s application. The court found that the Chancery Annex was not “used for commercial activity” at the time of filing. The court also rejected Bainbridge's argument that Argentina had waived the “commercial activity” requirement under Section 1610(a) of the FSIA. The court held that the bond did not evince an explicit promise or intent by Argentina not to raise FSIA defenses.

Leopold v. Manger

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

Docket: 22-5304

Opinion Date: May 28, 2024

Judge: WILKINS

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

An investigative reporter, Jason Leopold, sought access to the written directives of the United States Capitol Police and audits and reports prepared by the Inspector General of the Capitol Police. He invoked the District Court’s mandamus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, claiming a common law right to access public documents and a statutory right under 2 U.S.C. § 1909(c)(1). The District Court dismissed these claims, holding that sovereign immunity barred the suit.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissals for lack of jurisdiction, but for different reasons. The court found that Leopold failed to establish that the Capitol Police had a clear, indisputable, and ministerial duty to provide access to the records. The court also rejected Leopold's argument that the Inspector General of the Capitol Police breached his duty to publish all audits and reports that recommend corrective action under 5 U.S.C. § 404(e)(1)(C), as applied to the Inspector General of the Capitol Police under 2 U.S.C. § 1909(c)(1). The court concluded that even if this duty existed, the Inspector General was forbidden from publishing the audits and reports due to their designation as "security information" under 2 U.S.C. § 1979. The dismissal was affirmed without prejudice, allowing Leopold to refile his complaint with the requisite allegations to satisfy the mandamus standard if he so desires and if he plausibly believes that he can prove those allegations.

Schilling v. United States House of Representatives

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

Docket: 22-5290

Opinion Date: May 28, 2024

Judge: CHILDS

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves journalist Robert Schilling's attempt to obtain records related to the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the United States House of Representatives' use of outside consultants as part of a congressional investigation. Schilling sought these records under the common law right of access, alleging that the hearings were part of a series of public-private collaborations targeting political opponents of the climate policy agenda. He claimed that the requested records would show that the Committee used unpaid consulting services to prepare for the hearings, in violation of federal law and House rules.

The district court dismissed Schilling's petition, ruling that the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause barred the case. The court held that the Clause acts as an absolute jurisdictional bar to suits seeking compelled disclosure of materials related to legislative activity. Schilling appealed this decision.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, but on different grounds. The appellate court did not address the question of whether the Speech or Debate Clause barred Schilling's claim. Instead, it dismissed the case on the grounds of sovereign immunity. The court found that the documents Schilling sought were not "public records," and thus, there was no duty imposed on Congress to grant Schilling's request. As a result, the Larson-Dugan exception to sovereign immunity did not apply, and Schilling's claim was barred by sovereign immunity.

Lookhart v. State of Alaska, Board of Dental Examiners

Court: Alaska Supreme Court

Docket: S-18466

Opinion Date: May 24, 2024

Judge: PATE

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

Seth Lookhart, a dentist, was convicted of numerous crimes related to a fraudulent scheme that endangered his patients' health and safety. The scheme involved unnecessary sedation of patients to fraudulently bill Alaska’s Medicaid program, overcharging it by more than $1.6 million. Lookhart also stole $412,500 from a business partner. His reckless sedation practices nearly resulted in the loss of two patients' lives. He was arrested in April 2017 and convicted on 46 charges in January 2020, leading to a sentence of 20 years in prison with eight years suspended.

Following Lookhart's convictions, the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing sought to revoke his dental license. Lookhart agreed to the facts of the accusation but argued that revocation was not an appropriate sanction. The administrative law judge (ALJ) disagreed, stating that Lookhart's misconduct was more severe than any prior case and that revocation was the clear and obvious sanction. The Board of Dental Examiners adopted the ALJ's decision.

Lookhart appealed to the superior court, arguing that the Board's decision was inconsistent with its prior decisions. The court disagreed, stating that the Board had wide discretion to determine appropriate sanctions and that no prior case was comparable to Lookhart's. The court affirmed the Board's decision. Lookhart then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. It held that the Board of Dental Examiners did not abuse its discretion by revoking Lookhart's license. The court found that none of the Board's prior licensing cases involved misconduct of the scope and severity in this case, so there was no applicable precedent to limit the Board's exercise of its discretion.

A.L. v. Harbor Developmental Disabilities Foundation

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: B322729(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 30, 2024

Judge: HOFFSTADT

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury

The case involves a developmentally disabled woman, referred to as A.L., who was sexually assaulted by an employee of a transportation service. The transportation service was contracted by Harbor Developmental Disabilities Foundation, a regional center under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. The regional center's role is to assess the needs of developmentally disabled individuals and contract with service providers to meet those needs. A.L. sued the employee, the transportation service, and the regional center, arguing that the regional center had a duty to protect her from sexual assault by the transportation service's employees.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the regional center, concluding that the regional center did not have a duty to protect A.L. from sexual assault by the transportation service's employees unless the regional center had actual knowledge of the employee's propensity to engage in such conduct. The trial court's decision was based on the fact that the regional center had no such knowledge in this case.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the regional center had a duty to protect A.L. from sexual assault by the transportation service's employees only if the regional center had actual knowledge of the employee's propensity to engage in such conduct. The court concluded that imposing a broader duty on the regional center would effectively convert regional centers into insurers of all harm to consumers, which could potentially shut down these centers and deny essential services to the entire population of developmentally disabled persons.

People v. Pritchett

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: A168411(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 28, 2024

Judge: LANGHORNE WILSON

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case revolves around a defendant, Tara Shawnee Pritchett, who was on probation for two misdemeanor offenses. In September 2021, a detective conducted a warrantless search of Pritchett's room, believing she was on searchable probation. The search resulted in the discovery of U.S. currency and what was believed to be fentanyl. Pritchett was subsequently charged with one felony count of possession for sale of a controlled substance. However, Pritchett moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, arguing that her probation had been automatically terminated by Assembly Bill No. 1950 (AB 1950), which limited the maximum term of probation for most misdemeanor offenses to one year.

The trial court granted Pritchett's motion to suppress the evidence. It concluded that Pritchett's probation had automatically terminated when AB 1950 became effective on January 1, 2021, several months before the search. The court also ruled that the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply, leading to the dismissal of the charge against Pritchett.

The People appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District. They argued that the trial court erred in concluding that Pritchett's probation had terminated automatically due to AB 1950. They also contended that the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule should apply because the detective had made objectively reasonable efforts to determine Pritchett's probation status.

The appellate court agreed with the People's latter contention and reversed the trial court's decision. The court found that the detective had acted in objectively reasonable good faith by relying on court records to verify Pritchett's probation status prior to conducting the search. The court concluded that applying the exclusionary rule in this case would not serve its purpose of deterring unlawful police conduct. Therefore, the court directed the trial court to set aside the order granting Pritchett's motion to suppress and to enter a new order denying the motion.

Soto v. Superior Court

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: E081902(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 29, 2024

Judge: MENETREZ

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

Arasely Soto, a public school teacher, was injured during a routine medical procedure and had to retire. She sued her medical providers for malpractice and also sought disability retirement benefits from the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS). She and her husband, Raul Soto, settled with several of the medical malpractice defendants. CalSTRS brought an action against the Sotos, seeking to enforce its right to subrogation or reimbursement from the Sotos' settlement with the malpractice defendants.

The trial court granted CalSTRS’s motion for summary adjudication on its declaratory relief cause of action and denied the Sotos’ motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that CalSTRS was entitled to seek reimbursement from the Sotos and rejected the Sotos’ defense that Civil Code section 3333.1 bars any subrogation claim that CalSTRS would have asserted against the malpractice defendants. The Sotos filed a petition for writ of mandate asking the Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Two to vacate the trial court’s orders.

The appellate court agreed with CalSTRS’s argument that it has a statutory reimbursement claim against the Sotos, and the evidence in this case does not support application of section 3333.1 to bar CalSTRS’s claim. The court denied the Sotos' petition for writ of mandate.

WORTH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT v. TIBBETTS

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

Docket: S23G0791

Opinion Date: May 29, 2024

Judge: Ellington

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

The case involves John R. Tibbetts, a teacher, and his employer, the Worth County School District. The District offered Tibbetts a contract for the upcoming school year, but Tibbetts did not return the signed contract within the stipulated time. The District then informed Tibbetts that his employment would end when his current contract expired. Tibbetts sued the District for breach of contract, arguing that the offered contract did not comply with Georgia's statutory requirements for teacher contracts because it was missing terms and contained blanks. Therefore, he contended, his employment contract for the prior school year was renewed by operation of law.

The trial court granted the District's motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no existing written contract between the parties that operated to waive sovereign immunity under the ex contractu clause of the Constitution of the State of Georgia. The trial court found that the District offered Tibbetts a contract that complied with the statutory requirements, but that Tibbetts did not timely accept that offer.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. It determined that the contract the District offered Tibbetts for the upcoming school year failed to comply with the requirements of the statute; therefore, Tibbetts’s contract for the previous school year was renewed by operation of law and constituted a contract in writing. The Court of Appeals reasoned that Tibbetts’s claim was one for breach of a written contract, and sovereign immunity was waived pursuant to the ex contractu clause.

The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. It held that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the grant of summary judgment in favor of the District because the employment contract the District offered Tibbetts for the upcoming school year satisfied the requirements of the statute. Because Tibbetts failed to timely accept this offer, no written contract exists to support Tibbetts’s claim for breach of a written contract. Absent such a claim, there is no waiver of sovereign immunity pursuant to the ex contractu clause.

City of Carmel v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission

Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Docket: 23S-EX-00129

Opinion Date: May 30, 2024

Judge: MASSA

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law

The City of Carmel, Indiana, enacted two ordinances in 2019, one prohibiting the construction of above-ground utility lines unless authorized by the city, and another outlining procedures for relocating utility facilities due to city projects. The ordinances placed all costs on the utilities unless the city agreed otherwise. When the city began two improvement projects requiring Duke Energy to relocate its facilities underground, a dispute arose over who should bear the costs, estimated to exceed $500,000. The city filed a complaint with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, asking it to uphold the ordinances as reasonable and order Duke to pay the relocation costs.

The Commission, after a hearing, found the ordinances unreasonable and void. The city appealed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the Commission's order, dismissing the Commission as a party to the appeal. Both the Commission and Duke sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court.

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding that the Commission was a proper party on appeal and that its findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that the ordinances were unreasonable because they threatened to impose unreasonable expenses on Duke, which would in turn impact all Duke customers throughout Indiana. The court also found that the Commission's order declaring the ordinances void was within its statutory power.

Duke Energy Indiana LLC v. City of Noblesville

Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Docket: 23S-PL-00130

Opinion Date: May 30, 2024

Judge: Slaughter

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law

Duke Energy Indiana, a regulated electric utility, planned to build new facilities in Noblesville, Indiana, to meet increased customer demand. The project involved demolishing an abandoned house and garage and constructing a new substation, transmission lines, and a garage. The City of Noblesville insisted that Duke comply with its unified development ordinance before proceeding with the demolition, requiring Duke to obtain multiple permits. Duke declined, arguing that the city had no power to regulate a public utility's service-related projects through local permitting requirements. Despite not obtaining the permits, Duke began demolition.

In response, Noblesville issued a stop-work order and sued Duke in the Hamilton Circuit Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce its ordinance. Duke counterclaimed, arguing that Noblesville lacked jurisdiction and authority to regulate its activities. The trial court found in favor of Noblesville, ordering Duke to comply with the ordinance and obtain the permits. The court also imposed a $150,000 penalty against Duke for starting demolition without the required permits and awarded Noblesville $115,679.10 in attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.

The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions, holding that while the trial court had jurisdiction over Noblesville’s enforcement action against Duke, only the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission could decide whether Noblesville’s ordinance interfered unreasonably with Duke’s utility functions. The court reasoned that the commission had both the fact-finding expertise and the broader non-local focus necessary to balance the competing interests of public utilities and municipalities in deciding such disputes. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.

Hamilton v. Board of Licensure in Medicine

Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Citation: 2024 ME 43

Opinion Date: May 30, 2024

Judge: CONNORS

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

Wade T. Hamilton, a pediatric cardiologist, recommended a patient for a cardiac MRI scan but warned her that due to her COVID-19 vaccination, which he claimed included "magnets and heavy metals", it would be unsafe for her to enter an MRI machine. The patient's mother reported Hamilton's statements to the nurse practitioner who had referred the patient to Hamilton, leading to a report being filed against Hamilton with the Board of Licensure in Medicine. The Board, in response, opened a complaint proceeding and demanded that Hamilton undergo a neuropsychological evaluation.

Hamilton challenged the Board's order in the Superior Court, arguing that the Board had overstepped its authority and violated his rights to due process and free speech. However, the Superior Court denied his petition and ruled in favor of the Board. Shortly before this decision, Hamilton's medical license in Maine expired and he did not renew it.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court dismissed Hamilton's appeal as nonjusticiable, stating that there had been no final agency action and that the challenged order was moot because Hamilton had allowed his medical license to lapse. The court also noted that Hamilton's challenge to the order directing the evaluation was fully reviewable at the conclusion of the complaint proceedings, making his petition premature. Furthermore, since Hamilton was no longer licensed in Maine, the Board no longer had authority to pursue his evaluation. The court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Superior Court for dismissal of the petition for judicial review as nonjusticiable.

Clay v. Tunica County, Mississippi

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2022-CA-01106-SCT

Opinion Date: May 23, 2024

Judge: Randolph

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law

The case revolves around the suicide of Donnie Clay while he was detained in the Tunica County Jail. Barbara Clay, Donnie's wife, and Whitney Jackson, Donnie's girlfriend, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Sheriff K.C. Hamp and Tunica County. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated Donnie's Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by failing to prevent his suicide. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were aware or should have been aware of Donnie's vulnerability to suicide due to his history of multiple suicide attempts while detained in the jail, and that they failed to take action to prevent this risk.

The defendants filed a combined motion for summary judgment, arguing that Sheriff Hamp was entitled to qualified immunity and that the County could not be held liable under § 1983 as the plaintiffs failed to establish that a policy or custom of the jail was the direct cause of Donnie's suicide. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Sheriff Hamp was entitled to qualified immunity and that the plaintiffs failed to identify a single policy or custom of the County that directly caused Donnie's suicide. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the County.

The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence to establish that the training provided to the jail employees demonstrated deliberate indifference by the County to the potential for constitutional injuries. The court also found that a single episode of an employee's failure to follow jail policy does not establish a pattern of constitutional violations amounting to the policy of the County. Therefore, the court concluded that the trial judge did not err by granting the County's motion for summary judgment.

In re R.N.

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 MT 115

Opinion Date: May 28, 2024

Judge: Gustafson

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

The case revolves around a child, R.N., who was removed from his mother's care and placed in foster care with Ben and Charissa Wagner. The Wagners had previously adopted two of the mother's other children. The Department of Public Health and Human Services was granted temporary legal custody of R.N. and ordered the mother to complete a treatment plan. The Department later filed a petition to terminate the mother's parental rights due to her failure to complete the treatment plan and alleged abandonment of R.N. However, the mother began to engage with the Department and made positive changes, leading to the Department's shift from termination to reunification.

The Wagners, unhappy with the Department's change of stance, filed a motion to intervene, asserting that it was appropriate under M. R. Civ. P. 24 and § 41-3-422(9)(b), MCA. The District Court granted the Wagners' intervention motion, despite objections from the mother, the Department, and the guardian ad litem. The Wagners then filed a motion seeking an order for R.N. to be immediately placed in their care and for the Department to pursue termination of the mother's parental rights. The District Court did not set a hearing or issue a determination on the Wagners' motion. The Department filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the District Court granted.

The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court's decision to dismiss the case. The Supreme Court found that the District Court had misinterpreted the law when it allowed the Wagners to intervene. The court also ruled that the Wagners did not have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of R.N. because the mother's rights had not been terminated. Furthermore, the court held that neither the District Court nor the Supreme Court had the authority to order or compel the Department to refile and prosecute its petition for termination.

City of Manchester v. Bellenoit

Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Docket: 2022-0651

Opinion Date: May 30, 2024

Judge: DONOVAN

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

The case involves four police officers, Robert Bellenoit, Richard Brown, Gregory Ditullio, and Jacob Tyler, who were employed by the City of Manchester. Each officer was a member of a collective bargaining unit and was hired before 2008. Between 2015 and 2018, each officer was injured during their employment and filed a workers' compensation claim with the City. While these claims were being resolved, the City paid each officer accrued sick leave benefits. Once the officers were deemed eligible for workers' compensation benefits, they received payments from the City equivalent to the sick leave benefits they had previously received.

In 2019, the City demanded that each officer repay the sick leave benefits they had received while their eligibility for workers' compensation was pending or being appealed. The officers argued that they had a vested right to restoration of their sick leave benefits without the requirement of repayment. The Superior Court granted the City's motions for summary judgment and denied the officers' motions, ruling that the officers did not have a vested right to restoration of sick leave benefits without the requirement of repayment.

The officers appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in determining that they did not have a vested right to the restoration of sick leave credit without the requirement of repayment. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the officers did not have a vested right to the benefits provided in the pre-2008 amendment and that the post-2008 amendment applied to them. The court reasoned that the officers did not earn the benefit set forth in the pre-2008 amendment and that the post-2008 amendment became the law of the contract, governing where the collective bargaining agreement was silent.

New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. J.C. and K.C.

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Docket: A-8-23

Opinion Date: May 29, 2024

Judge: Solomon

Areas of Law: Family Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves a mother, J.C. (Jan), who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features. The New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division) became involved with Jan and her family in 2018 when she was involuntarily hospitalized for manic and paranoid behavior. The Division implemented a safety plan that mandated temporary supervision of Jan’s contact with her children. After a series of referrals and investigations, the Division filed a complaint in 2020, and the Family Part granted the Division care and supervision of the children. In 2021, the Law Guardian sought to dismiss the Title 30 action due to Jan’s lack of cooperation with the Division. The court discontinued the Division’s care and supervision of the children but dismissed the litigation with restraints, considering Jan's mental health issues.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, and the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification. The Appellate Division held that the family court could dismiss a Title 30 action while maintaining restraints on a parent’s conduct. The court reasoned that the family court did not enter permanent restraints but continued the restraints that existed during the litigation.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that the family court does not have the authority under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12 to dismiss a Title 30 action and continue restraints on a parent’s conduct. If the family court finds that it is in the best interests of the child to continue the restraints on a parent’s conduct, it must keep the case open to facilitate judicial oversight of the Division’s continued involvement, while safeguarding a parent’s right to counsel. The case was remanded to the Family Part to reinstate the Title 30 action or dismiss the case without restraints.

State ex rel. E. Ohio Gas Co. v. Corrigan

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2024-Ohio-1960

Opinion Date: May 24, 2024

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

The case involves East Ohio Gas Company, doing business as Dominion Energy Ohio ("Dominion"), and J. William Vigrass, individually and as executor of Virginia Vigrass’s estate. Dominion had requested access to Virginia's residence to inspect the gas meter located inside. However, due to Virginia's immunocompromised state and susceptibility to COVID-19, she denied Dominion access. Despite her account being paid in full, Dominion disconnected its natural-gas service to Virginia’s residence in January 2022. The disconnection resulted in freezing temperatures inside the residence, causing the water pipes to burst and damage the property. Virginia was later found dead in her residence.

In the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Vigrass sued Dominion on claims relating to the shutoff of its natural-gas service to Virginia’s residence. Dominion moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio had exclusive jurisdiction over the claims as they related to a service issue. However, Judge Peter J. Corrigan denied Dominion’s motion, reasoning that he had jurisdiction over the complaint because Vigrass had asserted common-law claims.

Dominion then filed an original action in prohibition in the Supreme Court of Ohio, asserting that Judge Corrigan patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over Vigrass’s action. Dominion sought an order to prevent Judge Corrigan from exercising jurisdiction and to vacate the orders he has issued in the underlying case.

The Supreme Court of Ohio granted the writ of prohibition, ordering Judge Corrigan to cease exercising jurisdiction over the underlying case and directing him to vacate the orders that he had previously issued in the case. The court concluded that both parts of the test set forth in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. were met, indicating that the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio had exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The court also granted in part and denied in part Dominion's motion to strike certain parts of Vigrass's brief.

State ex rel. Ravelo v. West Virginia Board of Dentistry

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 23-431

Opinion Date: May 24, 2024

Judge: ARMSTEAD

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Dr. Jose Ravelo, a board-certified oral surgeon, against the West Virginia Board of Dentistry. The petitioner sought to halt the Board's ongoing investigation and any further disciplinary action against him based on his treatment of a patient in 2021. He argued that the Board violated the statutory time limitation for resolution of disciplinary actions and violated his due process rights.

The Board initiated an investigation after Dr. Ravelo self-reported a complication following a surgical procedure he performed on a patient. The Board's Complaint Committee recommended filing a complaint against Dr. Ravelo, citing concerns about his standard of care. Dr. Ravelo responded to the complaint, and the Board continued its investigation.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found that the Board complied with West Virginia Code § 30-1-5(c), which permits an extension of time for the Board to issue a final ruling. The Court held that an agreement to extend the period of time for an applicable regulatory board to issue a final ruling on a complaint is not barred by the fact that the applicable board is also the complainant. The Court also found that the Board had not violated the petitioner's constitutional right to due process. Therefore, the Court denied the petitioner's request for a writ of prohibition.