On remand from the California Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal applied the analysis mandated by Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court, (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, 300, and considered supplemental briefs from the parties. In this case, the ACLU sought disclosure under the California Public Records Act (PRA) of billing invoices sent to the County by its outside attorneys. The superior court granted the ACLU's petition for writ of mandate and compelled disclosure, and the County challenged that decision via a petition for a writ of mandate in this court. The court granted the County's writ petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The circuit court and Court of Special Appeals affirmed the decision of the Howard County Board of Appeals approving a conditional use application for a funeral home in Howard County’s Rural Residential-Density Exchange Option zone. The Howard County Board of Appeals hearing examiner initially denied the proposed conditional use plan, but after public hearings and two revisions, the Board approved the conditional use application subject to several conditions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Board properly analyzed the revised plan pursuant to the relevant statutory requirements; (2) the Board did not err in concluding that the revised plan would not create an adverse cultural impact on vicinal properties or that such impact will be beyond those ordinarily associated with funeral home and mortuary uses; and (3) substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusion that the revised plan contemplated a 100-foot stream buffer in compliance with state requirements. View "Clarksville Residents Against Mortuary Defense Fund, Inc. v. Donaldson Properties" on Justia Law

Maxmed sought judicial review of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' determination that the Medicaid program overpaid Maxmed by almost $800,000 for home health care services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. The Fifth Circuit held that the failure to record the random numbers used in the sample did not necessarily invalidate the extrapolation methodology; the Secretary did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in rejecting the challenge to the independence of the sampling units; Congress clearly envisioned extrapolation in overpayment determinations involving home health agencies like Maxmed, and the Secretary's reliance on extrapolation as a tool was justified; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maxmed's motion to amend or alter the judgment; and the district court properly rejected Maxmed's due process claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Secretary. View "Maxmed Healthcare, Inc. v. Price" on Justia Law

This matter involved the use by the City of Lewes, the State, and others of a former industrial park transferred to the State and held as open space. Plaintiff brought three actions contesting that use. The only issues remaining were whether a 2014 council meeting was in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and, if not, what remedy was available. The Court of Chancery granted summary judgment in favor of the City Council of Lewes and denied Plaintiff’s motion, holding that the 2014 meeting did not frustrate the intent of FOIA and that no effective remedy could ensue from a decision that the 2014 meeting was non-FOIA compliant. View "Lechliter v. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the authority of the City of Miami Civilian Investigative Panel (CIP), an independent body designed to investigate and review instances of alleged police misconduct and review police policies and procedures, to issue a subpoena to Lieutenant Freddy D’Agastino and order him to appear before the CIP to testify in regard to alleged misconduct. D’Agastino and the Fraternal Order of Police argued that the CIP as an investigative authority conflicts with a component of the Police Officers’ Bill of Rights (PBR), Fla. Stat. 112.533(1). The trial court ruled in favor of the City of Miami and the CIP. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court quashed the decision below to the extent it affirmed the CIP’s authority to issue a subpoena to D’Agastino, holding that the PBR preempts the authority of a political subdivision as defined in Fla. Stat. 112.533(1)(b) to compel an officer to testify in connection with a complaint of misconduct through a subpoena. View "D’Agastino v. City of Miami" on Justia Law

The amendment to Ohio Rev. Code 5713.03 enacted in 2012 (H.B. 487) applied to the circumstances of this case and required a remand to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) for further consideration. At issue here was a 2013 real property valuation for a lease-encumbered property that had been the subject of recent arm’s-length sales. The Supreme Court held that the H.B. 487 amendment required the BTA to determine the value of the subject property’s unencumbered fee-simple estate. Because the BTA did not properly consider appraisal evidence that purported to explain why the subject property’s recent sale price did not reflect the value of the unencumbered fee-simple estate, the court vacated the BTA’s decision and remanded the case for the BTA to address and weigh the evidence before it. View "Terraza 8, LLC v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a developer, appealed a decision of Defendant, a planning and zoning commission, denied Plaintiff’s application for an affordable housing subdivision pursuant to the Affordable Housing Appeals Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-30g. The trial court sustained Plaintiff’s administrative appeal. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the commission was required to grant Plaintiff’s application for subdivision approval despite the application’s lack of compliance with a municipal road ordinance; and (2) the trial court properly ordered the commission to approve Plaintiff’s application “as is” rather than for consideration of conditions of approval. View "Brenmor Properties, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission of Town of Lisbon" on Justia Law

The Park and Malibu Bay petitioned the trial court to have Measure R, an initiative designed to limit large developments and chain establishments, declared invalid. The trial court granted the petition and defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal held that Measure R exceeds the initiative power because it invalidly annuls or delays executive or administrative conduct. The court also held that Measure R's conditional use permit (CUP) is illegal because it conditions the CUP on the character of the permittee or applicant rather than on the use of the land. The court declined to sever the invalid portions of Measure R and affirmed the judgment. View "The Park at Cross Creek v. City of Malibu" on Justia Law

The trial court held that the rate charged by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for transporting water (“wheeling”) violated several laws and awarded the San Diego County Water Authority damages for breach of a water exchange agreement between the two agencies. The court held that the Authority lacked standing to challenge a provision in water conservation program contracts between the parties that penalizes the Authority for participating in litigation or supporting legislation to challenge or modify Metropolitan’s existing rate structure. The court of appeal remanded. The trial court erroneously held that although Metropolitan is required to pay its pro rata share of the costs of maintaining the California Aqueduct, these costs may not be considered in calculating Metropolitan’s wheeling charges, essentially because Metropolitan does not own the aqueduct. The inclusion of Metropolitan’s system-wide transportation costs, including transportation charges paid to the State Water Project, in the calculation of its wheeling rate does not violate the wheeling statutes, common law, or the parties’ agreement. The allocation of “water stewardship” charges to the wheeling rate was proper. The Authority has standing to challenge the unconstitutional anti-litigation condition. View "San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California" on Justia Law

The New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the scope of a municipality's obligation to disclose electronically stored information in accordance with the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA). Plaintiff John Paff filed a request with Galloway Township's records custodian for specific information in emails sent by the Township's Municipal Clerk and Chief of Police over a two-week period. From those emails, Paff sought only information contained within the following fields: sender, recipient, date, and subject. Paff did not request the contents of the emails. The Township contended that only the emails (not specific information embedded within them) were government records subject to disclosure under OPRA. On that basis, the Township denied the records request. The trial court ordered the production of the fields of information sought by Paff because OPRA defined a government record as information stored or maintained electronically by a municipality. A panel of the Appellate Division reversed, concluding that OPRA required only the production of the emails, not information electronically stored within them. The Supreme Court held the Appellate Division's overly constrictive reading of OPRA "cannot be squared with OPRA s objectives or statutory language." The Appellate Division erred in finding that the government record is the email itself and not the easily accessible fields of information that were maintained electronically. View "Paff v. Galloway Township" on Justia Law