United States v. Sirois

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Dockets: 23-1721, 23-1723

Opinion Date: October 15, 2024

Judge: BARRON

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

The case involves Lucas Sirois and Alisa Sirois, who were indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). They sought to enjoin the Department of Justice (DOJ) from prosecuting them, arguing that their conduct was in substantial compliance with the Maine Medical Use of Cannabis Act, which allows for the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana under state law. The defendants claimed that the DOJ's prosecution violated the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which prohibits the DOJ from using funds to prevent states from implementing their medical marijuana laws.

The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied the defendants' request for injunctive relief. The court held a hearing where the government presented evidence that the defendants' operations, particularly a grow operation known as the "Shoe Shop," violated Maine's medical marijuana laws by operating as a collective and engaging in black-market sales. The court found that the government had met its burden of production, showing a substantial evidentiary basis for the prosecution. However, the defendants failed to meet their burden of persuasion to demonstrate that the prosecution lacked a substantial evidentiary basis or was arbitrary or irrational.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The appellate court held that the defendants did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that they were in substantial compliance with Maine's medical marijuana laws. The court noted significant evidence that the Shoe Shop operated as a collective and that Lucas Sirois engaged in black-market sales. The court concluded that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the DOJ's prosecution would prevent Maine from giving practical effect to its medical marijuana laws, as required under the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment. Therefore, the denial of the motion to enjoin the prosecution was affirmed.

Avon Nursing & Rehabilitation v. Becerra

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Docket: 23-492

Opinion Date: October 17, 2024

Judge: SACK

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

A group of skilled nursing facilities in New York and Rhode Island challenged a rule promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The rule allowed certain inspections of these facilities without the presence of a registered nurse, which the plaintiffs argued contradicted the Medicaid Act's requirement for a registered nurse to be part of the survey teams. The dispute arose after an incident at Avon Nursing and Rehabilitation, where a resident was injured, leading to an inspection by a team that did not include a registered nurse. The plaintiffs contended that the rule violated the statutory requirement.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The court concluded that the Medicaid Act's registered nurse requirement applied only to surveys conducted under 42 U.S.C. § 1396r(g)(2) and not to activities under 42 U.S.C. § 1396r(g)(4), which were the subject of the challenged rule. The court also determined that even if the statute were ambiguous, the agency's interpretation was reasonable and entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the registered nurse requirement did not extend to complaint investigations and other enforcement activities under 42 U.S.C. § 1396r(g)(4). The court reasoned that the term "survey" in the statute referred specifically to annual standard surveys, extended surveys, and validation surveys, and not to the investigatory activities described in § 1396r(g)(4). Consequently, the rule allowing inspections without a registered nurse did not contradict the Medicaid Act.

New Heights Farm I, LLC v. Great American Insurance Co.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 24-1087

Opinion Date: October 15, 2024

Judge: SUTTON

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Insurance Law

Nicholas and Stacy Boerson, owners of New Heights Farm I and II in Michigan, faced a disappointing corn and soybean harvest in 2019. They submitted crop insurance claims to Great American Insurance Company, which were delayed due to an ongoing federal fraud investigation. The Boersons sued Great American, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture for breach of contract, bad faith adjustment, and violations of insurance laws.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the Boersons' claims. It ruled that claims related to Great American's nonpayment were unripe due to the ongoing investigation, while claims alleging false measurements and statements by Great American were ripe but subject to arbitration. The court also dismissed claims against the federal defendants on sovereign immunity grounds.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. It held that the claims related to nonpayment were unripe because the insurance policy barred payment until the investigation concluded. The court also found that the arbitration agreement in the insurance policy covered the ripe claims against Great American, requiring those disputes to be resolved through arbitration. Additionally, the court ruled that sovereign immunity barred the claims against the federal defendants, as there was no clear waiver of immunity for constructive denial claims under the Federal Crop Insurance Act.

Knowlton v. City of Wauwatosa

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 23-2135

Opinion Date: October 16, 2024

Judge: St. Eve

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

In February 2020, a police officer in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, shot and killed a Black teenager, Alvin Cole. Following the incident, community members organized protests against police violence and racism. Anticipating unrest after the district attorney decided not to charge the officer, the mayor imposed a curfew. Plaintiffs, affected by the curfew and police conduct, filed constitutional and state law claims against the City of Wauwatosa and individual defendants.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed most claims, allowing only First Amendment and Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) claims to proceed. The court later granted summary judgment for the defendants on the First Amendment claims, leaving only the DPPA claims for trial. The jury ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants on the DPPA claims.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that the curfew was a permissible time, place, and manner restriction under the First Amendment. The court found that the curfew was content-neutral, served a significant government interest in public safety, was narrowly tailored, and left open ample alternative channels for communication. The court also upheld the dismissal of the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims against individual defendants, agreeing that the claims were inadequately pleaded and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further amendments. Lastly, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s response to a jury question regarding the definition of “personal information” under the DPPA. The judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Jimenez v. Department of Homeland Security

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Docket: 23-10073

Opinion Date: October 15, 2024

Judge: Hull

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Immigration Law

The plaintiffs, citizens of the Dominican Republic, requested records from three federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related to the revocation of their U.S. visas. The agencies produced some records but withheld others, citing FOIA exemptions, including Exemption 3 and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 222(f). The plaintiffs challenged the adequacy of the searches and the exemptions claimed by the agencies.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida reviewed the case. The government filed declarations from FOIA officials explaining the searches and the withheld records. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, concluding that the agencies conducted adequate searches and properly invoked FOIA Exemption 3 to withhold and redact documents.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the agencies conducted reasonable searches and properly invoked Exemption 3. The court found that INA § 222(f) qualifies as a withholding statute under Exemption 3 and that visa revocation records fall within its scope. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the agencies' declarations violated the best evidence rule and that the searches were inadequate because they did not include alien number searches or routing requests to other DHS components. The court concluded that the agencies' actions were reasonable and in compliance with FOIA requirements.

Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Rollin

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Docket: 21-11643

Opinion Date: October 11, 2024

Judge: PRYOR

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

The case involves a dispute between two federally recognized Indian tribes, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, over the excavation and development of a burial site known as Hickory Ground in Wetumpka, Alabama. The Muscogee Nation claims that the site is sacred and historically significant, containing graves and ceremonial grounds. The Poarch Band, which purchased the site in 1980 and later had it held in trust by the United States, excavated the site with Auburn University and announced plans to develop a hotel and casino on it. The Muscogee Nation sued to stop the development and restore the site.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama dismissed the Muscogee Nation's complaint, ruling that the Poarch Band and its officials enjoyed sovereign immunity. The court also found that the Poarch officials were immune under an exception to Ex parte Young for claims that are the functional equivalent of a quiet title action and implicate special sovereignty interests. The district court did not analyze the claims individually but dismissed them collectively, leading to the current appeal.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred by not analyzing the Poarch officials' sovereign immunity on a claim-by-claim basis. The appellate court emphasized that each claim must be considered separately to determine whether it is the functional equivalent of a quiet title action and whether it implicates special sovereignty interests. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to allow the Muscogee Nation to amend its complaint and to analyze the claims individually. The appellate court also rejected the argument that the Supreme Court had abrogated the Coeur d’Alene exception to Ex parte Young, affirming that it remains a narrow but valid exception.

West v. State of Alaska

Court: Alaska Supreme Court

Docket: S-18458

Opinion Date: October 17, 2024

Judge: Henderson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

A plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the State, arguing that the statutory definition of "sustained yield" under AS 16.05.255(k) violates the Alaska Constitution’s sustained yield provision. The plaintiff contended that the legislature lacked the authority to define sustained yield and that the statutory definition contradicted the constitutional provision. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, requesting the court to declare the statute unconstitutional and to enjoin the State from enforcing it.

The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, reviewed the case. The court denied the State’s motion to dismiss, which was based on res judicata and collateral estoppel, determining that the issues raised were not precluded by prior litigation. The court then granted summary judgment in favor of the State, concluding that the statutory definition of sustained yield in AS 16.05.255(k) complies with the Alaska Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case on appeal. The court analyzed the plain meaning of the constitutional and statutory provisions, the intent of the framers of the Alaska Constitution, and relevant precedent. The court found that the legislature had the authority to define sustained yield in statute and that the statutory definition was consistent with the broad principle of sustained yield as intended by the framers. The court emphasized that the Constitution allows for legislative discretion in establishing management priorities for natural resources.

The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the superior court’s judgment, holding that AS 16.05.255(k)’s definition of sustained yield does not violate the Alaska Constitution and that the statute has a plainly legitimate sweep.

CITY OF MESA v. RYAN

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Docket: CV-23-0284-PR

Opinion Date: October 17, 2024

Judge: Ann Timmer

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury

A police officer from the City of Mesa, while driving his patrol car, was involved in a multi-vehicle accident that injured a bicyclist, Philip Rogers. Rogers claimed the officer's negligent driving caused the accident and served notices of claim to the City of Mesa and the officer, offering to settle for "$1,000,000 or the applicable [insurance] policy limits, whichever are greater." Later, Rogers amended his notices to specify a settlement amount of $1,000,000.

The Superior Court of Maricopa County denied the City’s motion to dismiss Rogers' complaint, which argued that the initial notices did not comply with Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-821.01(A) because they did not state a specific settlement amount. The City then petitioned for special action review. The Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court’s decision, directing it to dismiss the complaint, concluding that the notices of claim did not provide a specific amount for settlement as required by the statute.

The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed the case to determine if Rogers' notices of claim complied with § 12-821.01(A). The Court held that the settlement offer of "$1,000,000 or the applicable policy limits, whichever are greater" was insufficiently specific to meet the statutory requirements. The Court emphasized that the statute requires a clear and precise settlement amount, which was not provided in Rogers' notices. Consequently, Rogers was barred from maintaining his lawsuit due to non-compliance with the statutory notice requirements.

The Supreme Court of Arizona reversed the Superior Court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Rogers' claims. The Court also affirmed in part and vacated in part the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

Barton v. Brown

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 Ark. 152

Opinion Date: October 17, 2024

Judge: HUDSON

Areas of Law: Election Law, Government & Administrative Law

In this case, the appellants, members of the Crittenden County Board of Election Commissioners, appealed a decision by the Crittenden County Circuit Court. The appellees, Shirley Brown and Lavonda Taylor, filed a petition seeking to compel the Board to conduct early voting at specific locations for the 2024 General Election. The Board had failed to unanimously approve an early voting site in West Memphis, leading the County Clerk, Paula Brown, to designate the Seventh Street Church of Christ as an early voting site. The appellees also sought to maintain the First Baptist Church as an early voting site, as it had been used in the 2022 General Election.

The Crittenden County Circuit Court partially granted the appellees' petition, ordering the Board to conduct early voting at the Church of Christ but denied the request to include the First Baptist Church. The court found that the County Clerk had the authority under Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-5-418(a)(1)(A) to designate the Church of Christ as an early voting site. However, it ruled that the statute requiring polling sites to remain the same as the previous general election did not apply to early voting sites.

The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision with modifications. The Supreme Court agreed that the County Clerk had the authority to designate the Church of Christ as an early voting site. However, it modified the writ of mandamus to clarify that the Board must only comply with its statutory duties regarding early voting conducted by the County Clerk. On cross-appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision, holding that the First Baptist Church must remain an early voting site for the 2024 General Election, as the Board had not voted to change it from the 2022 General Election.

MCGILL V. THURSTON

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 Ark. 149

Opinion Date: October 17, 2024

Judge: Karen R. Baker

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

The case involves a petition filed by Jennifer McGill and Cherokee Nation Entertainment, LLC (CNE) seeking to invalidate a proposed constitutional amendment concerning the Pope County casino license. The petitioners argued that the Arkansas Secretary of State, John Thurston, improperly certified the proposed amendment. They claimed that the number of valid signatures was insufficient and that the popular name and ballot title were misleading. Local Voters in Charge (LVC) and Jim Knight intervened in the case, supporting the proposed amendment.

Previously, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted expedited consideration of the petition and allowed the intervention. The court bifurcated the proceedings into two counts: the sufficiency of the signatures and the sufficiency of the popular name and ballot title. A Special Master was appointed to resolve factual disputes regarding the signatures, which were addressed in a separate opinion. This opinion focuses on the challenges to the popular name and ballot title.

The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the popular name and ballot title certified by the Attorney General. The court held that the popular name and ballot title were sufficient and not misleading. The court found that the ballot title adequately informed voters that any existing casino license in Pope County would be revoked if the amendment passed. The court also rejected arguments that the popular name and ballot title failed to disclose conflicts with federal law or that they misled voters about the amendment's impact on future constitutional amendments.

Ultimately, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied the petition, allowing the proposed amendment to remain on the ballot for the November 5, 2024, general election. The court issued its mandate immediately.

MITCHELL V. NORRIS

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 Ark. 148

Opinion Date: October 17, 2024

Judge: Webb

Areas of Law: Election Law, Government & Administrative Law

Bryan Norris submitted a countywide ballot initiative in Independence County, Arkansas, proposing that all elections be conducted using paper ballots. The County Clerk, Tracey Mitchell, rejected the initiative, claiming the ballot title was misleading. Norris then filed a petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory and injunctive relief in the Independence County Circuit Court, challenging Mitchell's decision. The circuit court found the ballot title and popular name legally sufficient, granted the writ of mandamus, and directed Mitchell to certify the ballot initiative. Mitchell was also enjoined from rejecting the measure.

Mitchell appealed the circuit court's decision, arguing that the ballot title was insufficient because it omitted and misstated material information, potentially leading voters to enact an ordinance conflicting with Arkansas law. Specifically, she contended that the ballot title failed to disclose that the proposed ordinance conflicted with state statutes requiring the use of tabulation devices for paper ballots and did not inform voters about the existing legal methods for casting and counting votes.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case, noting that the sufficiency of a ballot title is a matter of law. The court emphasized that a ballot title must provide an impartial summary of the proposed amendment, giving voters a fair understanding of the issues and the scope of the proposed changes. The court found that the ballot title did not need to include every possible consequence or legal argument and that Mitchell's concerns were speculative. The court concluded that Mitchell did not meet her burden of proving the ballot title was insufficient and affirmed the circuit court's order directing Mitchell to certify the measure as sufficient to the county election board. The decision was affirmed, and the mandate was issued immediately.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Powell

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: E079078(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: October 11, 2024

Judge: RAPHAEL

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

The case involves a dispute between a taxpayers' association and a water district over the imposition of groundwater replenishment charges. The taxpayers' association alleged that the water district's charges violated constitutional provisions and unfairly benefited large agricultural businesses. The association sought a writ of mandate to stop the collection of these charges and to vacate the resolutions imposing them. They also claimed conversion, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and violations of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) against the water district's board members, general manager, and consulting firms.

The Superior Court of Riverside County denied the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion, which sought to strike several causes of action on the grounds that they arose from protected activities. The court found that the public interest exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute applied. Additionally, the court sustained the defendants' demurrer to the first amended petition and complaint, finding the claims time-barred under the validation statutes. The court also awarded over $180,000 in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs, deeming the anti-SLAPP motion frivolous.

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that the public interest exemption did not apply because the relief sought could only be provided by the water district, not the individual defendants. The court found that the anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted for most causes of action, except for conversion and the writ of mandate against the general manager. Consequently, the fee award was reversed. The court also affirmed the demurrer ruling, as the claims against the individual defendants were not legally sufficient. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings.

Richardson v. Secretary, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Docket: SC2024-1314

Opinion Date: October 10, 2024

Judge: Couriel

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

Adam Richardson, a citizen and taxpayer, petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for writs of quo warranto and mandamus, alleging that the Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) violated section 104.31, Florida Statutes, by advocating against a proposed constitutional amendment (Amendment 4) related to abortion rights. Richardson claimed that their actions, including statements on an AHCA webpage and social media, as well as participation in a public call and opinion piece, unlawfully interfered with the vote on Amendment 4.

The lower courts did not review this case as it was directly brought to the Supreme Court of Florida. Richardson argued that the respondents' actions violated a statute limiting political activities of state officers and employees, which he believed should be enforced through extraordinary writs.

The Supreme Court of Florida denied the petition. The court held that the writ of quo warranto is traditionally used to test the right of a person to hold an office or exercise a state-derived power, not to compel criminal prosecution or enable private enforcement of a criminal statute. The court found that Richardson's grievances were more about the merits of the respondents' actions rather than their authority to act. Additionally, the court denied the writ of mandamus, stating that Richardson did not establish a clear legal right or an indisputable legal duty on the part of the respondents, nor did he show that there was no other adequate remedy available. The court concluded that no further relief was required to complete the exercise of its jurisdiction and denied the petition without permitting a rehearing.

Linn County Auditor v. Iowa Voter Registration Commission

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Docket: 23-0661

Opinion Date: October 11, 2024

Areas of Law: Election Law, Government & Administrative Law

A county auditor filed an administrative complaint against the Secretary of State, alleging that the statewide voter registration file, known as I-Voters, lacked adequate security measures and safeguards to prevent unauthorized access and erroneous removal of eligible voters, thus violating the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The Secretary of State moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it was speculative and that the file complied with federal standards. The administrative body agreed and dismissed the complaint.

The county auditor then sought judicial review in the Iowa District Court for Polk County, arguing that the administrative body had erred in dismissing his complaint without an evidentiary hearing. The Secretary of State contended that the county auditor lacked standing and that the complaint was insufficient. The district court dismissed the petition, concluding that the county auditor had not demonstrated an injury in fact.

The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the county auditor had standing due to his role as the county commissioner of elections, which gave him a specific, personal, and legal interest in the integrity of the voter registration file. The court also found that the administrative body had improperly resolved factual questions without allowing an opportunity for the presentation of evidence. The court held that the county auditor's allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss and that the administrative body should not have decided factual issues at the motion to dismiss stage.

The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

MASS LAND ACQUISITION, LLC VS. DISTRICT COURT

Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

Citation: 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 67

Opinion Date: October 17, 2024

Judge: Kristina Pickering

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

A Nevada limited liability company, Mass Land Acquisition, LLC, challenged the use of eminent domain by Sierra Pacific Power Company, d/b/a NV Energy, to take an easement across its property for a natural gas pipeline. NV Energy sought immediate occupancy of the property, while Mass Land argued that such a taking by a private entity violated the Nevada Constitution and requested a jury determination on whether the taking was for a public use.

The First Judicial District Court of Nevada denied Mass Land's motion to dismiss and granted NV Energy's motion for immediate occupancy. The court concluded that NV Energy, as a regulated public utility, was exercising delegated eminent domain powers and acting as the government, not as a private party. The court also found that the taking was for a natural gas pipeline, a statutorily recognized public use, and thus did not require a jury determination on public use before granting occupancy.

The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and denied Mass Land's petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition. The court held that the Nevada Constitution's prohibition on transferring property taken by eminent domain to another private party did not apply to NV Energy's taking for a natural gas pipeline, as it was a public use. The court also determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact requiring a jury determination on whether the taking was actually for a public use. The court concluded that NV Energy's actions were lawful and consistent with the statutory and constitutional provisions governing eminent domain in Nevada.

Orellana v Town of Carmel

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citation: 2024 NY Slip Op 05131

Opinion Date: October 17, 2024

Judge: Cannataro

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury

On a snowy day in December 2018, the Superintendent of Highways for the Town of Carmel, Michael J. Simone, drove into an intersection without the right of way and collided with Ana Orellana's vehicle. Simone had been inspecting road conditions during a snowstorm and had directed his team to salt the roads. After completing his inspection, he was returning to his office when the accident occurred. Simone testified that he was not in a rush, did not consider the situation an emergency, and had no intention of conducting further inspections en route.

The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that Simone's conduct was protected under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), which exempts municipal employees from liability for ordinary negligence when "actually engaged in work on a highway." The court denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment as academic. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision.

The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that Simone was not "actually engaged in work on a highway" at the time of the accident, as he had completed his inspection and was merely returning to his office. Therefore, the protections of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) did not apply. The Court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2024-Ohio-4953

Opinion Date: October 15, 2024

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

The case involves the Ohio Democratic Party and two voters, Norman Wernet and Eric Duffy, who filed a mandamus action against Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose. They sought to compel LaRose to rescind Directive 2024-21, which requires individuals delivering absentee ballots for family members or disabled voters to complete an attestation at the board of elections and prohibits returning such ballots to a drop box. The directive aims to prevent "ballot harvesting" and ensure the integrity and security of absentee ballot delivery.

Previously, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ruled in League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose that certain Ohio laws limiting who can return absentee ballots for disabled voters were preempted by the federal Voting Rights Act. Following this, LaRose issued Directive 2024-21 and later Directive 2024-24 and Advisory 2024-03, which provided additional guidance but did not substantially alter the original directive.

The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the relators' claims were barred by laches due to their unreasonable delay in filing the complaint. The court noted that the directive was issued on August 31, but the complaint was not filed until September 27, a 24-day delay. This delay was deemed unreasonable, especially given the time-sensitive nature of election-related matters. The court also found that the delay caused material prejudice to the Secretary of State and county boards of elections, as absentee voting had already begun, and changing the procedures at this stage would lead to voter confusion and administrative burdens.

The Ohio Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus based on laches and did not address the merits of the relators' claims. The court also denied the motion to intervene filed by the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Party but accepted their brief as an amici curiae brief.

Hideout v. Summit County

Court: Utah Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 UT 39

Opinion Date: October 10, 2024

Judge: POHLMAN

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

In 2020, Utah law temporarily allowed municipalities to annex unincorporated areas without a petition or county consent. During this period, the Town of Hideout annexed land in Summit County. After receiving a certificate of annexation from the Lieutenant Governor, Summit County challenged the annexation and the related municipal ordinance in district court, claiming procedural violations and seeking to invalidate the annexation.

The Fourth Judicial District Court in Wasatch County ruled in favor of Summit County, granting summary judgment on the grounds that Summit County had standing to challenge the annexation and that the annexation ordinance was invalid due to procedural issues. The court found that Summit County had standing under various statutes and the doctrine of public interest standing.

The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that Summit County lacked a legally protectible interest under the relevant statutory scheme, which did not provide counties with a right to challenge annexations. The court also determined that the public interest standing doctrine could not compensate for this lack of a legally protectible interest because the legislature had explicitly excluded counties from the annexation process. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the district court to dismiss the case.

In re Appeal of K.M.

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 VT 63

Opinion Date: October 11, 2024

Judge: Waples

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Health Law, Public Benefits

K.M., an adult with multiple disabilities, including autism and a seizure disorder, has been receiving Medicaid-funded developmental disabilities services for over twenty years. These services, provided by Washington County Mental Health Services (WCMHS), were supposed to include more than thirty hours of community support each week. However, since March 2020, K.M. has only received two to five hours of support weekly, leading to negative health effects.

K.M. petitioned the Human Services Board to order the Department of Disabilities, Aging, and Independent Living (DAIL) to provide the full services he is entitled to. The Board dismissed his petition, stating it failed to specify the action required for compliance and that an order to provide services without available staff was too vague. The Board also interpreted K.M.'s request as seeking a broader policy change, which it deemed outside its authority, citing Husrefovich v. Department of Aging & Independent Living.

The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Board's dismissal. The Court held that the Board has the statutory authority to order DAIL to provide the services K.M. is entitled to under federal and state law. The Court clarified that while the Board cannot issue broad policy injunctions, it can provide specific relief to individuals. The Court found K.M.'s request for services clear and specific enough to inform DAIL of the required action. The case was remanded to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Defend Washington v. Hobbs

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Docket: 102,996-9

Opinion Date: October 17, 2024

Judge: Steven González

Areas of Law: Election Law, Government & Administrative Law

This case involves five initiatives submitted to the Washington State legislature in 2024. The Secretary of State reviewed the signatures on the petitions for these initiatives and determined that there were enough valid signatures to certify them. The initiatives included measures on parental rights in education, repealing the state’s capital gains tax, forbidding state and local income taxes, prohibiting carbon tax credit trading, and making participation in the state’s long-term care insurance program optional. Defend Washington, along with Susan Young and Sharon Chen, challenged the adequacy of the Secretary’s review, arguing that it did not ensure the signers were legal voters.

The trial court found that the Secretary’s review was adequate and dismissed the challenge. The court ruled that the Secretary’s use of statistical sampling techniques to verify signatures was consistent with state regulations and that checking signers’ addresses was not required. The Secretary had already submitted the initiatives to the legislature, which passed two of them and left the remaining three to be decided by voters in the upcoming general election.

The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held that the Secretary’s procedure of validating signatures by matching them with voter rolls did not violate RCW 29A.72.230, which requires verification of legal voters’ names on the petition. The court found no statutory requirement to verify addresses and concluded that the Secretary’s actions were consistent with the law. The court also noted that any further requirements for signature verification procedures would need to be established by the legislature or the Secretary through rulemaking. The superior court’s judgment was affirmed.

U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation v. Smith

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Docket: 102,358-8

Opinion Date: October 17, 2024

Judge: JOHNSON

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

Lorna Smith, an appointed member of the Washington Fish and Wildlife (WFW) Commission, also held an appointed position on the Jefferson County Planning Commission. The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, along with Marc Nelson and Kolby Schafer, filed a lawsuit against Smith, arguing that RCW 77.04.040 prohibits her from holding both positions simultaneously. The statute states that members of the WFW Commission cannot hold another state, county, or municipal elective or appointive office. Smith conceded that her position on the county planning commission is a county appointive position but disputed that it qualifies as an "office" under the statute.

The Thurston County Superior Court reviewed the case and both parties moved for summary judgment. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, determining that the planning commission position is indeed a county appointive office under RCW 77.04.040. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and ordered Smith to resign from her position on the county planning commission. Smith sought direct review of this decision, and Governor Jay Inslee filed an amicus brief supporting her.

The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case de novo, focusing on the statutory interpretation of the term "office" in RCW 77.04.040. The court concluded that the term "office" refers to a position of authority, duty, or responsibility conferred by a governmental authority for a public purpose or to exercise a public function. Applying this definition, the court held that the Jefferson County Planning Commission is an "office" under the statute. Therefore, Smith is prohibited from holding both positions simultaneously. The court affirmed the trial court's decision.