Several homeowners sued an irrigation district, claiming that the district's refusal to remove over twenty-year-old charges from the tax rolls was an ultra vires act, violating the Tax Code's twenty-year limitations period. The district argued that the charges were Water Code assessments, not taxes, and thus not subject to the limitations period.The trial court granted the district officials' jurisdictional plea without permitting discovery, dismissing the homeowners' claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed in part, concluding that the pleadings did not support an ultra vires claim under the Tax Code because the homeowners had not sought a refund from the tax assessor and the district had clarified that the charges were assessments under the Water Code.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and determined that the homeowners had sufficiently pleaded facts to demonstrate the trial court's jurisdiction over their ultra vires claim. The court held that the homeowners' pleadings, viewed liberally, alleged that the charges were taxes, had been delinquent for more than twenty years, and that no related litigation was pending at the time of the request to remove the charges. The court concluded that these allegations were sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction and did not implicate the district's governmental immunity.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment regarding the Tax Code ultra vires claim and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Herrera v. Mata" on Justia Law

A newspaper, Copley Ohio Newspapers, Inc., doing business as Akron Beacon Journal, made several public-records requests to the City of Akron and the Akron Police Department in 2022. The requests sought records identifying police officers involved in three lethal use-of-force incidents. The city provided some records but redacted the officers' names, citing safety concerns and legal exceptions. The newspaper filed a mandamus action under the Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, to compel the city to produce unredacted records.The lower court, the Supreme Court of Ohio, reviewed the case. The city argued that the requests for personnel files, discipline records, and internal investigations of unidentified officers were improper public-records requests and that the officers' names were protected under the confidential law-enforcement investigatory records (CLEIR) exception and the Kallstrom/Keller exception, which protects records that could endanger officers' lives.The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the requests for personnel files, discipline records, and internal investigations of unidentified officers were improper public-records requests. However, the court found that the requests for administrative leave or reinstatement notices and incident reports were proper. The court ruled that the names of the officers involved in the Walker shooting were exempt from disclosure under the CLEIR exception for uncharged suspects. The court ordered the city to provide copies of the Walker incident reports with only the names of the eight officers who are uncharged suspects redacted and to provide unredacted copies of the administrative leave and reinstatement notices. The court denied the newspaper's requests for statutory damages and attorney fees but granted court costs. View "State ex rel. Copley Ohio Newspapers, Inc. v. Akron" on Justia Law

Roberta Schlegel experienced flooding in her basement after a portion of a roadway near her home collapsed, causing debris to block a drainage culvert. Schlegel sued Summit County for the flood damage, alleging negligence in maintaining the roadway. The county claimed political-subdivision immunity as a defense.The trial court and the Ninth District Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the county, concluding that the county was immune from liability under political-subdivision immunity laws. They determined that the negligent-roadway-maintenance exception to immunity did not apply because Schlegel was not a motorist or user of the roadway injured by the roadway condition.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the Ninth District's judgment. The court held that the exception to political-subdivision immunity in R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) for negligent failure to keep public roads in repair and free of obstructions is not limited to losses suffered by users of the roadway. The court found that the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, and it applies to any person who suffers loss to property caused by the political subdivision's negligence in maintaining public roads.The case was remanded to the trial court to determine whether the county's negligence in maintaining the roadway proximately caused the flooding and whether any defenses under R.C. 2744.03 could restore the county's immunity. View "Schlegel v. Summit County" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Luther C. Parente and Eric L. Stewart sued the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC) and its staff for failing to properly treat their preexisting medical conditions. They alleged various federal and state constitutional, statutory, and common law bases for relief, including a claim under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act of 1990 (RICRA). The plaintiffs claimed that RIDOC's medical and correctional staff failed to meet their medical needs, resulting in harm and discrimination.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied RIDOC's motion for summary judgment on Eleventh Amendment grounds as to the RICRA claim. The district court held that Rhode Island's general waiver of sovereign immunity under the State Tort Claims Act applied to RICRA claims, reasoning that discrimination actions under RICRA sounded in tort. RIDOC appealed this decision, arguing that the district court erred in holding that violations of civil rights under RICRA were subject to the general waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and determined that there was a "special reason" to certify the underlying state-law issue to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. The appellate court noted that the question of whether RICRA claims are "actions of tort" under the State Tort Claims Act is a matter of state law that has not been definitively resolved by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Therefore, the First Circuit certified the question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court to determine whether discrimination claims under RICRA are covered by the general waiver of sovereign immunity under the State Tort Claims Act. The First Circuit retained jurisdiction over the issue pending resolution of the certified question. View "Parente v. Lefebvre" on Justia Law

The case involves the approval process for a large-scale commercial offshore wind energy facility located on the Outer Continental Shelf, fourteen miles south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. The plaintiffs, consisting of commercial fishing entities and a nonprofit organization, challenged the federal government's approval of the project, citing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, which included various federal departments and agencies, as well as the business entity responsible for the wind project. The court found that the plaintiffs' ESA claims were non-justiciable due to lack of standing and mootness, as the initial biological opinion had been superseded by a new one. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs were outside the zone of interests protected by the NEPA and the MMPA, and that the Alliance had failed to show that the Corps' issuance of the CWA Section 404 permit was arbitrary or capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's rulings de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgments, agreeing that the plaintiffs lacked standing for their ESA claims and that the claims were moot. The court also upheld the district court's zone-of-interests rulings regarding the NEPA and MMPA claims. Additionally, the court found that the Corps' decision to issue the CWA permit was not arbitrary or capricious and that the BOEM's approval of the project under the OCSLA was lawful. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiffs' arguments did not demonstrate that the BOEM had acted arbitrarily or capriciously in approving the project. View "Seafreeze Shoreside, Inc. v. Department of the Interior" on Justia Law

James Lowe appealed a decision by Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) regarding the denial of his request for continued opioid medication exceeding 90 Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME) daily. Lowe argued that WSI abused its discretion in denying his request for approval of the medication.The District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, reviewed the case and affirmed WSI's decision. The court found that WSI had not acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or capriciously in its decision-making process. The court also noted that Lowe's medical provider had not provided sufficient documentation to support the medical necessity for exceeding the 90 MME limit, as required by the new law effective July 1, 2022.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The court found that WSI had conducted a full review of Lowe's request and had properly applied the guidelines governing long-term opioid pain management. The court concluded that WSI did not abuse its discretion in denying Lowe's request for continued opioid medication in excess of 90 MME daily. The court affirmed the district court judgment affirming the managed care binding dispute resolution decision by WSI. View "Lowe v. Workforce Safety and Insurance" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Tati Abu King and Toni Heath Johnson were unable to register to vote in Virginia due to felony convictions. King was convicted of felony drug possession in 2018, and Johnson was convicted of multiple felonies, including drug possession, in 2021. Virginia's constitution disenfranchises individuals convicted of felonies unless their civil rights are restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority. King and Johnson argued that this disenfranchisement violated the Virginia Readmission Act, a federal statute from 1870, which they claimed restricted Virginia from amending its constitution to disenfranchise individuals for crimes that were not felonies at common law in 1870.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed three of the four counts in the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim but allowed one count based on the Virginia Readmission Act to proceed. The defendants, including various state election officials and the Governor of Virginia, moved to dismiss the complaint on sovereign immunity grounds, which the district court rejected.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs' claim met the requirements of the Ex parte Young doctrine, which allows suits for prospective relief against state officials to prevent ongoing violations of federal law. The court affirmed the district court's decision to allow the claim to proceed against most defendants but reversed the decision regarding the Governor of Virginia and the Secretary of the Commonwealth, finding that they lacked enforcement responsibility for the challenged state action. The court concluded that the Governor and Secretary must be dismissed from the case on sovereign immunity grounds. The district court's order was thus affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "King v. Youngkin" on Justia Law

The Idaho State Board of Education approved a proposal for the University of Idaho to purchase the University of Phoenix for $550 million, funded by a $685 million bond. This decision followed three closed-door executive sessions. Idaho Attorney General Raúl R. Labrador filed a suit to void the sale, alleging violations of the Idaho Open Meetings Law, which mandates that public policy formation be conducted openly. The district court dismissed the suit, finding no violations.The district court ruled that the Board's actions during the executive sessions were lawful under the exception in Idaho Code section 74-206(1)(e), which allows closed meetings for preliminary negotiations involving trade or commerce when in competition with other states. The court interpreted "preliminary negotiations" to include all negotiations before contracting and applied a "reasonable belief" standard to determine if the Board believed it was in competition with another governing body.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its broad interpretation of "preliminary negotiations" and the application of the "reasonable belief" standard. The Supreme Court held that "preliminary negotiations" should be narrowly construed to mean a phase of negotiations before final negotiations, and the statute requires actual competition, not just a reasonable belief of competition. The court vacated the district court's summary judgment, its judgment following the bench trial, and the award of attorney fees and costs to the Board. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of Idaho Code section 74-206(1)(e). View "Labrador v. Board of Education" on Justia Law

The Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS) removed two minors from their parents' care due to domestic violence and placed them with their paternal aunt. DFS provided rental assistance to the aunt for two months until she became a licensed foster parent and began receiving foster care subsidies. The children's attorney requested additional rental assistance for the aunt, which DFS declined. During a hearing on a motion to terminate parental rights, the district court ordered DFS to pay an additional $1,000 towards the aunt's rent. DFS sought reconsideration, which the district court denied after an evidentiary hearing.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada initially ordered DFS to pay the rental assistance, citing NRS 432B.550(1) as the basis for its authority. DFS argued that the district court lacked statutory authority to issue such an order and petitioned the Supreme Court of Nevada for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to vacate the order.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and concluded that the district court lacked statutory authority to order DFS to pay rental assistance. The court found that NRS 432B.550(1) and NRS 432B.590(7) did not empower the district court to direct DFS to make such payments. The court emphasized that DFS has broad statutory authority to manage its budget without interference from the court. Consequently, the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously by issuing the order. The Supreme Court of Nevada granted the petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the district court to vacate its order requiring DFS to pay rental assistance to the foster parent. View "In re N.R.R. and N.I.R." on Justia Law

Ashleigh Gelin died by suicide in November 2013 while incarcerated at the Baltimore County Detention Center. Her parents, Edward and Deborah Gelin, sued Baltimore County and several correctional officers, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and Maryland common law. They claimed the officers showed deliberate indifference to Ashleigh's safety and were grossly negligent.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland partially granted and partially denied the County's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the complaint did not properly allege deliberate indifference to Ashleigh's mental health needs but did plausibly allege indifference to her physical safety. The court held that the officers could not claim qualified immunity or Maryland common-law public official immunity and denied Baltimore County's claim of governmental immunity. The County's subsequent motion for reconsideration was partially addressed, but the court did not rule on whether the officers could assert public official immunity against the negligence claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the County's appeal was premature because the district court had not yet ruled on all issues raised in the County's motion for reconsideration. Specifically, the district court had not decided whether the officers could assert public official immunity against the negligence claims. As a result, the Fourth Circuit held the appeal in abeyance, pending the district court's resolution of the remaining issue. The court directed the parties to inform it once the district court had made a final ruling on the pending issue. View "Gelin v. Baltimore County" on Justia Law