Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Several members of a family brought suit against a court-appointed receiver and his company, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. The dispute arose when the State of California, in the course of a criminal insurance fraud prosecution against one of the plaintiffs, obtained a court order freezing certain assets and appointing the receiver to manage them. The court later ordered the receiver to liquidate specified stock holdings "as soon as practicable." The plaintiffs alleged that the receiver failed to do so, resulting in a significant loss in the value of the accounts during the period before he was replaced by a successor. They claimed damages of over $1.1 million due to the alleged failure to comply with the liquidation order.After the plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Superior Court of Orange County, the defendants responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the claims arose from protected conduct and that the receiver was immune from liability under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the claims were based on acts performed in the receiver’s official capacity and that plaintiffs failed to show a probability of prevailing because the receiver’s conduct was protected by both the litigation privilege and quasi-judicial immunity.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that a court-appointed receiver is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for discretionary acts and decisions made in that capacity. The court determined that the plaintiffs’ claims arose from the receiver’s exercise of discretion regarding when liquidation was "practicable," and such discretionary conduct is protected. Because the claims were subject to anti-SLAPP procedures and the plaintiffs failed to establish minimal merit, the appellate court affirmed the order striking the complaint. The court also rejected arguments based on statutory immunities for public employees, clarifying its decision was grounded in common law quasi-judicial immunity. View "Semaan v. Mosier" on Justia Law

An employee suffered a severe workplace injury in 2013 while working for a construction company, resulting in permanent and total disability with ongoing medical needs. The employee brought a third-party tort action against entities other than his employer involved in the accident and settled for $5 million. From the settlement, over $2.1 million was used to pay attorney fees and litigation expenses, with the remainder placed in trust. By the time of settlement, the employer and its workers’ compensation carrier had already paid over $1.5 million in benefits but stopped payments after the settlement, leaving the employee responsible for his ongoing care. The value of anticipated future medical costs was estimated at over $7 million.The administrative law judge (ALJ) initially found that only past benefits paid by the employer should be included in calculating the employer’s proportionate share of the legal expenses associated with the third-party settlement, setting that share at 31.6%. On review, the Commissioner disagreed, concluding that future anticipated benefits should also be included, as the employer’s interest in the recovery included the right to offset future benefits. The ALJ recalculated, finding the employer’s proportional share exceeded the total legal expenses, and ordered reimbursement to the employee for expenses already paid. The Appeals Board of the Labor Commission affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed these decisions. It held that when an employer or insurance carrier seeks both reimbursement for past payments and an offset against future workers’ compensation liability from a third-party recovery, both past-paid and future-anticipated benefits must be considered in calculating the employer’s proportionate share of the legal expenses associated with that recovery. The court also held that the employer must reimburse the employee for its share of legal expenses before offsetting future benefits. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Labor Commission. View "Auto Owners Insurance v. Labor Commission" on Justia Law

Egger Enterprises, LLC acquired a ranch in Humboldt County, Nevada, which had previously shifted from flood to center pivot irrigation systems. This conversion left portions of water rights unused, and Egger sought to use the leftover water by acquiring adjacent public land through federal Desert Land Entry applications. Administrative delays between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Nevada’s Division of Water Resources (NDWR) prolonged this process. Meanwhile, a nonparty challenged Egger’s applications, asserting that Egger had not used portions of its water rights for over 16 years, and thus, those rights were forfeited.The State Engineer found, by clear and convincing evidence, that certain water rights had not been put to beneficial use for five or more consecutive years and declared them forfeited. Egger petitioned for judicial review in the Sixth Judicial District Court, which initially reversed and remanded for lack of proper notice. Once proper notice was sent and Egger requested extensions of time, the State Engineer granted one extension but denied a subsequent request, ultimately issuing a declaration of forfeiture. Egger again sought judicial review, but the district court denied relief, finding the State Engineer’s decision supported by substantial evidence and holding that Egger was not entitled to equitable relief.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of Egger’s petition. The court held that the State Engineer is not required to make findings on every statutory factor when considering an extension request under NRS 534.090(3)—only those relevant to the case. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the forfeiture decision and that Egger was not entitled to equitable relief, as there was no beneficial use of the water within the statutory period, nor any estoppel or error by the State Engineer. View "EGGER ENTER., LLC VS. STATE ENGINEER" on Justia Law

A city councilmember in Stevenson, Washington, participated in a protest outside the Skamania County Courthouse on International Transgender Day of Visibility. During the demonstration, she exposed her breasts with the phrase “MY BODY IS NOT A SIN” written on her chest as a form of protest. Police officers approached her regarding potential violation of Washington’s indecent exposure law (RCW 9A.88.010), but she asserted her actions were protected by the First Amendment and was neither arrested nor charged.A local resident filed a recall petition in Skamania County Superior Court, alleging that the councilmember committed malfeasance and violated her oath of office by engaging in indecent exposure, which the petitioner argued justified her removal from office. The Skamania County Superior Court found the recall charge factually and legally sufficient, determining that malfeasance simply required the commission of an unlawful act, and certified the ballot synopsis. The court reasoned that it was ultimately up to voters to decide if the conduct amounted to a violation of the law.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case. The court held that the recall petition was neither factually nor legally sufficient. It found that there was no evidence the councilmember intended to violate the law, as indecent exposure under RCW 9A.88.010 requires intentional open and obscene exposure, and the facts indicated she believed her conduct was lawful protest. Furthermore, the court concluded her actions were constitutionally protected expressive conduct. The court also determined that there was no factual or legal basis for a violation of the oath of office, as her conduct was not related to her official duties. The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reversed the superior court’s ruling and dismissed the recall petition. View "In re Recall of Lauser" on Justia Law

A county commissioner in Washington hired as her assistant a person with whom she had a preexisting intimate relationship. She stated that her previous assistant did not meet her performance expectations and she wanted someone she already knew. Prior to hiring, she reviewed county policies and found no restrictions on dating subordinates. The personal relationship ended about a month after hiring, but the professional relationship continued until the commissioner terminated the employee. During their personal relationship, the employee sent the commissioner $1,500 for a plane ticket, gave her $50 for gas, and occasionally bought her coffee, food, and gifts. A subsequent county investigation could not determine whether the $1,500 was a loan or a gift and found no evidence of job-related favoritism or that the employment was contingent on the personal relationship.A registered voter in the county filed a recall petition, alleging that the commissioner committed misfeasance, malfeasance, or violated her oath of office by hiring someone with whom she had a personal relationship and accepting money and gifts from that employee. The Thurston County Superior Court dismissed charges three, four, and five as factually insufficient due to lack of specific acts or dates. The court amended charges one and two to include more detail and found them factually sufficient, but ruled all charges legally insufficient because the petition did not identify any specific law, policy, or standard violated or explain how the conduct constituted a recallable offense.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the matter de novo. It held that while charges one and two were factually sufficient, none of the charges were legally sufficient because they failed to specify a violated standard, show manifestly unreasonable conduct, or demonstrate any impact on the commissioner’s official duties. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the recall petition. View "In re Recall of Clouse" on Justia Law

A physician employed by a medical group entered into an employment agreement that included a noncompete clause prohibiting him from working for a competing healthcare organization within a specified geographic area for one year after leaving his position. After learning that the physician planned to join a competitor, the employer warned him that doing so would violate his contract. Nevertheless, after his employment ended, the physician began working for the competing medical group, which was a subsidiary of a hospital authority created by statute. The employer then sued the physician for breach of contract and the competitor for tortious interference with contract.The Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk considered only the pleadings and granted the competitor’s plea of sovereign immunity, dismissing the action against it with prejudice. The court adopted the argument that, as a subsidiary of the hospital authority, the competitor automatically shared in the authority’s sovereign immunity and was therefore immune from suit.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case de novo, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true. The Court held that a subsidiary or agent of an immune entity does not automatically share the principal’s sovereign immunity. Instead, whether a corporate agent shares in the principal’s immunity depends on the specific facts and circumstances, analyzed under a four-factor test articulated in prior Virginia cases. Because the record lacked sufficient facts to determine the competitor’s entitlement to immunity and because the competitor bore the burden of establishing such entitlement, the Supreme Court of Virginia concluded that the circuit court erred by sustaining the plea of sovereign immunity. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Sentara Medical Group v. Klena" on Justia Law

A group of cities in Idaho, each holding junior ground water rights within the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer, became subject to curtailment proceedings initiated by senior surface water users represented by the Surface Water Coalition. The Coalition argued that pumping by junior ground water rights holders diminished water available to senior rights holders drawing from the Snake River. In response, the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources has periodically updated the methodology used to determine whether material injury to the senior rights has occurred, issuing a series of orders—the most recent being a Sixth Methodology Order.Following the issuance of a Fifth Methodology Order and an associated Post-Hearing Order, the cities challenged those orders in the Snake River Basin Adjudication district court, raising several concerns about the Director’s factual determinations and legal standards. During the administrative process, the Director simultaneously issued a Sixth Methodology Order that expressly superseded all prior methodology orders. The cities, however, did not include a direct challenge to the Sixth Methodology Order in their petition for judicial review. The district court affirmed the Director’s Post-Hearing Order, supporting the agency’s methodology and factual findings.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the cities failed to petition for review of the operative Sixth Methodology Order in the district court, as required under Idaho administrative law. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and declined to address the substantive claims raised by the cities. The court also denied requests for attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-117(1), finding the statute inapplicable, but awarded costs to the prevailing parties. View "City of Idaho Falls v. Idaho Department of Water Resources" on Justia Law

A group of activists and the Chinook Center, a nonprofit organization, participated in a housing-rights march in Colorado Springs. After the march, the Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD) launched an investigation targeting some participants. CSPD obtained three search warrants: two related to Jacqueline Armendariz, a protester accused of obstructing an officer by dropping her bike, and one targeting the Chinook Center’s Facebook account. The first Armendariz warrant authorized a search of her home and seizure of her electronic devices. The second allowed a search of data on those devices, including a broad keyword search. The third warrant authorized obtaining all posts, messages, and events from the Chinook Center’s Facebook account for a seven-day period.Armendariz and the Chinook Center filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the City, individual CSPD officers, the FBI, and others, alleging that the warrants were overbroad in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. They also brought state-law claims, and the Chinook Center alleged a violation of the Stored Communications Act. The district court granted motions to dismiss all claims, concluding that the officers were protected by qualified immunity, the plaintiffs failed to allege plausible constitutional violations, and that municipal liability was unsupported.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s ruling that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity regarding the warrant to seize Armendariz’s electronic devices. However, the court reversed the grant of qualified immunity to the officers for the second warrant (searching data on Armendariz’s devices) and the Facebook warrant, holding that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged these warrants were overbroad in violation of their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The court also reversed the dismissal of related claims against the City and remanded for further proceedings. The dismissals of Armendariz's claims against the FBI and the United States were affirmed. View "Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs" on Justia Law

The dispute arose when beneficiaries of a land trust owning commercial property in Hammond, Indiana, declined an offer from a city redevelopment commission to purchase their property. When the commission subsequently initiated a condemnation action to acquire the property for a purported public street, the landowners alleged that the taking was arbitrary, capricious, and motivated by improper, private interests rather than a legitimate public purpose. After the landowners' attempt to file a counterclaim for abuse of process in the condemnation action was denied, they pursued a separate lawsuit alleging abuse of process and seeking damages.The Lake Superior Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6), finding that the landowners’ abuse-of-process claim should be addressed in the pending condemnation action to avoid conflicting rulings. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a parallel abuse-of-process claim was permissible, that the complaint stated a claim suitable for judicial review, and that the question of immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA) could not be resolved on the pleadings because it was disputable whether the defendants acted outside the scope of their employment.Upon granting transfer and thereby vacating the appellate court’s opinion, the Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the application of the ITCA’s immunity provisions. The Court held that the alleged conduct by the mayor, redevelopment commission members, and city fell within the scope of their employment and that the abuse-of-process claim directly resulted from the initiation of a judicial proceeding—the condemnation action. Therefore, the ITCA provided immunity from suit as a matter of law for all defendants. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the landowners’ claims. View "Indiana Land Trust #3082 v. Hammond Redevelopment Commission" on Justia Law

The case involved a property owner in Euless, Texas, who had an ongoing dispute with the local post office regarding mail delivery to her two rental properties. She alleged that United States Postal Service employees intentionally withheld her mail and interfered with its delivery, resulting in personal and financial harm, including lost rental income and difficulty attracting tenants. Despite her attempts to resolve the issue through administrative complaints and by requesting alternative mail-handling services, the problems persisted.After these efforts failed, the property owner filed suit against the United States in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting various state-law tort claims such as nuisance, conversion, tortious interference with prospective business relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court dismissed her complaint, holding that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s (FTCA) postal exception preserved the government’s sovereign immunity for claims relating to the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of mail, regardless of whether the conduct was negligent or intentional. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the statutory terms did not encompass intentional acts of non-delivery.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case to resolve a split among federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court held that the FTCA’s postal exception bars claims against the United States for the intentional nondelivery of mail. The Court found that, at the time the statute was enacted, the terms “miscarriage” and “loss” of mail included failures to deliver mail regardless of intent, and thus sovereign immunity applies even to claims alleging intentional misconduct by postal workers. The Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Postal Service v. Konan" on Justia Law