Habdab, LLC filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the circuit court of Lake County against the County of Lake and the Village of Mundelein, seeking to invalidate certain fees imposed under an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). Habdab claimed the fees violated the Road Improvement Impact Fee Law (Impact Fee Law) and sought to avoid paying unconstitutional road improvement impact fees. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The circuit court denied Habdab's motion and granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's decision.The appellate court held that the fees imposed under the IGA did not constitute "road improvement impact fees" under the Impact Fee Law because they were not conditioned on the issuance of a building permit or a certificate of occupancy. The court also found that the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions did not apply, as there was an essential nexus and rough proportionality between the fees and the legitimate state interest of preventing traffic congestion.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court's judgment. The court held that the IGA fees did not fall under the definition of "road improvement impact fees" as per the Impact Fee Law, which specifically applies to fees imposed as a condition to the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy. The court also agreed that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine did not apply, as there was a legitimate state interest in minimizing traffic congestion and a rough proportionality between the fees and the impact of the proposed development. View "Habdab, LLC v. County of Lake" on Justia Law

Marathon Petroleum Company LP (Marathon) was audited by the Cook County Department of Revenue (Department) for gasoline and diesel transactions between January 2006 and July 2014. The Department determined that Marathon failed to collect and remit taxes on certain transactions, specifically "book transfers," and assessed taxes, interest, and penalties. Marathon argued that these transactions were financial settlements of forward contracts, not taxable sales, and sought administrative review.An administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the Department's assessments, finding that Marathon did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the book transfers did not involve a change of ownership or movement of fuel. Marathon then sought judicial review, and the circuit court reversed the ALJ's decision, finding that the Department's assessments were unreasonable and that Marathon had provided sufficient evidence to rebut the Department's prima facie case.The appellate court reversed the circuit court's decision, affirming in part the ALJ's decision and remanding for a recalculation of the amount due. The appellate court held that the Department's auditing method was reasonable and that Marathon did not meet its burden of rebutting the Department's prima facie case. The appellate court also found that the transfer of an intangible ownership interest was enough to make the book out transactions taxable.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and found that the ALJ misunderstood some of the evidence presented by Marathon. The court held that Marathon provided sufficient documentary evidence to rebut the Department's prima facie case and that the ALJ's conclusion was clearly erroneous. The court reversed the appellate court's judgment, affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court's judgment, and remanded the case to the Cook County Department of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings to determine if the Department can prove its case of taxability under the Fuel Tax Ordinance. View "Marathon Petroleum Co. LP v. Cook County Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

Aksal Group, LLC filed an application with the Minot City Planning Department in July 2023 to vacate the Kyle’s Addition plat and approve a preliminary plat for the Citizens Alley Addition, a new three-lot subdivision. The Kyle’s Addition plat, recorded in 1995, included a single block with a 24-foot public access easement. RMM Properties, which owns adjacent property, objected, arguing that Aksal Group needed their consent to vacate the public alley and that half of the alley would revert to them as the adjacent property owner.The Minot Planning Commission approved Aksal Group’s application under N.D.C.C. § 40-50.1-16, and the Minot City Council subsequently passed a resolution in September 2023 to vacate the Kyle’s Addition plat and approve the preliminary plat for the Citizens Alley Addition. RMM Properties appealed this decision to the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, which affirmed Minot’s decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that N.D.C.C. § 40-50.1-16 was the appropriate statute governing Aksal Group’s application. The court found that Minot’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable and was supported by substantial evidence. The court also determined that the Kyle’s Addition plat dedicated a public access easement, not a fee title, and that the procedures under N.D.C.C. § 40-50.1-16 were correctly applied. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order, upholding Minot’s decision to vacate the Kyle’s Addition plat and approve the preliminary plat for the Citizens Alley Addition. View "RMM Properties v. City of Minot" on Justia Law

Christopher R. Hicks submitted a public-records request to the Union Township, Clermont County Board of Trustees, seeking email- and mail-distribution lists for the township's newsletter. The township denied the request, claiming the lists did not document the township's activities and were not public records. Hicks filed a complaint in the Court of Claims, arguing that the lists were public records documenting the township's functions and activities.The Court of Claims appointed a special master who found that the lists were used for administrative convenience and did not meet the definition of a public record. The Court of Claims adopted this recommendation and denied Hicks's request. Hicks appealed to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the lists were used solely for convenience and did not document the township's functions or activities.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the lower court's decision. The court held that the email- and mail-distribution lists are public records under R.C. 149.011(G) because they document the township's functions and activities by showing how the newsletter is distributed to constituents. The court emphasized that the Public Records Act should be construed liberally in favor of broad access and that the lists are central to the township's communication with its constituents. The court ordered that the requested records be made available to Hicks. View "Hicks v. Union Twp. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Trustees" on Justia Law

Robert Mann, a taxpayer, filed a lawsuit against the State of California and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), challenging CHP’s vehicle impound policies. Mann argued that the impoundment of vehicles without a warrant and inadequate notice procedures constituted illegal expenditures of public funds. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent what he characterized as wasteful, unlawful, and unconstitutional law enforcement policies. The trial court granted a permanent injunction requiring CHP to consider vehicle owners’ ability to pay towing and storage fees during impound hearings and vehicle release procedures, and to revise its notice form to advise owners of procedures for retrieving impounded vehicles.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially reviewed the case. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, the trial court granted a motion for judgment against Youth Justice Coalition and entered judgment in favor of defendant Warren A. Stanley, who had retired before the trial. The court found that Stanley, as a former public officer, was no longer a proper defendant. The trial court issued a permanent injunction requiring CHP to revise its vehicle impound procedures, including considering the ability to pay and revising notice forms.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the injunction improperly required CHP to contravene valid statutes, relied on inapplicable case law, conflicted with the existing statutory scheme, and mandated unnecessary revisions to its notice procedures. The appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in requiring CHP to conduct ability-to-pay hearings and revise its notice forms, as these requirements were not mandated by due process and conflicted with statutory provisions. The judgment was reversed, and costs on appeal were awarded to the appellant. View "Mann v. State" on Justia Law

In 2021, the San Diego City Council approved new franchise agreements granting San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) the exclusive right to provide gas and electric services in San Diego. Kathryn Burton, a San Diego resident, filed a lawsuit against the City and the Council members who voted for the agreements, alleging a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Burton claimed that the Council members had discussed and agreed on their votes in a "secret serial meeting" using the mayor as an intermediary.The Superior Court of San Diego County allowed SDG&E to intervene as a defendant over Burton's opposition. SDG&E, joined by the City defendants, moved for summary judgment, arguing that Burton failed to comply with the Brown Act's requirement to make a prelitigation demand to cure or correct the alleged violation. The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding that Burton did not meet the demand requirement and lacked standing for her other claims.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court held that Burton did not comply with the demand requirement of section 54960.1 of the Brown Act, which mandates that an interested person must make a written demand to the legislative body to cure or correct the action before filing a lawsuit. The court found that the letters sent by attorney Maria Severson did not mention Burton and were not sent on her behalf, as Burton had not retained Severson at the time the letters were sent. The court rejected Burton's arguments of statutory interpretation, ratification, and substantial compliance.The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Burton's failure to comply with the demand requirement justified the summary judgment. The court also deemed Burton's challenge to the order granting SDG&E leave to intervene as moot, given the affirmation of the judgment. View "Burton v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of appellants, including individual citizens, CeaseFirePA, and the City of Philadelphia, who challenged two Pennsylvania statutes that prevent local governments from enacting their own firearms regulations. The appellants argue that these statutes, Section 6120 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act and Section 2962(g) of the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law, hinder their ability to address gun violence effectively at the local level.The Commonwealth Court previously reviewed the case and dismissed the appellants' petition, sustaining preliminary objections for failure to state a claim. The court found that the appellants did not sufficiently allege violations of substantive due process under Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the state-created danger doctrine, or improper interference with Philadelphia's delegated duties under the Local Health Administration Law and the Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and affirmed the Commonwealth Court's decision. The court held that the appellants failed to identify a constitutionally protected right that the statutes infringed upon, thus failing to establish a substantive due process claim. The court also concluded that the appellants did not meet the elements required to establish a state-created danger claim, particularly the requirement that the harm caused was foreseeable and fairly direct. Lastly, the court determined that the statutes did not interfere with Philadelphia's delegated public health responsibilities, as the relevant laws did not implicitly or explicitly authorize local firearm regulation.In summary, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the dismissal of the appellants' petition, upholding the statutes that preempt local firearm regulations. View "Crawford v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

A federal inmate, Dustin Rowland, developed a hernia after a pretrial detention fight. A physician deemed the hernia "reducible and stable," recommending non-surgical treatments. Rowland, desiring surgery, utilized the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) Administrative Remedial Program, which involves a four-step grievance process. His initial requests were denied, but a later appeal led to approval for a surgical consultation. However, Rowland's final appeal was denied for procedural reasons, and he did not correct the deficiency. He eventually received surgery but filed a lawsuit claiming deliberate indifference to his medical needs, seeking damages under Bivens, injunctive relief for post-operative care, and a negligence claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed Rowland's Bivens claim, granted summary judgment against his injunctive relief claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and dismissed the FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to non-exhaustion. Rowland's motion for reconsideration was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Bivens claim, noting that Rowland's case presented a new context not covered by previous Bivens cases and that the BOP's Administrative Remedial Program provided an adequate alternative remedy. The court also upheld the summary judgment on the injunctive relief claim, as Rowland failed to exhaust administrative remedies specifically for post-operative care. Lastly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the FTCA claim, emphasizing the jurisdictional requirement of exhausting administrative remedies before filing suit. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Rowland's Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration. View "Rowland v. Matevousian" on Justia Law

Robert J. Hall, an inmate in the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC), filed a lawsuit against MDOC and Corrections Officer Paul Woodruff, in his individual capacity, for injuries he sustained from an attack by a fellow inmate, Ahmad Townsend. Hall had previously submitted an "Enemy Listing/Protective Custody Declaration" form indicating he felt threatened by Townsend. Despite this, Woodruff placed Townsend in Hall's cell while Hall was asleep, leading to the attack and resulting in mental and physical injuries.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Woodruff’s motion to dismiss based on official immunity. Woodruff appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo, accepting all factual allegations as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to Hall. The court examined whether Woodruff was entitled to official immunity under Missouri state law, which protects public officials from liability for discretionary acts performed during their official duties. The court found that the MDOC policies cited by Hall did not create a ministerial duty because they allowed for discretion in how and when enemy declarations were checked and safeguards implemented.The Eighth Circuit concluded that Woodruff's actions were discretionary, not ministerial, and thus he was entitled to official immunity. The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Hall v. Woodruff" on Justia Law

Best Development Group, LLC proposed to develop a Grocery Outlet store in King City. The King City Planning Commission approved the project, determining it was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the class 32 categorical exemption for infill development. Efrain Aguilera appealed this decision to the King City Council, which denied the appeal and upheld the exemption. Aguilera and Working Families of Monterey County then filed a petition for writ of mandate, arguing that the class 32 exemption did not apply because the project was not in an urbanized area and the environmental assessment was inadequate.The Monterey County Superior Court denied the petition, ruling that the class 32 exemption did not require the project to be in an urbanized area as defined by CEQA and that substantial evidence supported the City’s determination that the project met the exemption criteria. The court also found that the City was not required to conduct a formal environmental review.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the terms “infill development” and “substantially surrounded by urban uses” in CEQA Guidelines section 15332 should not be interpreted using the statutory definitions of “infill site,” “urbanized area,” and “qualified urban uses” from other sections of CEQA. The court found that the regulatory intent was to reduce sprawl by exempting development in already developed areas, typically but not exclusively in urban areas. The court also determined that substantial evidence supported the City’s finding that the project site was substantially surrounded by urban uses, based on the environmental assessment and aerial photographs.The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, upholding the application of the class 32 exemption and ruling that no further CEQA compliance was required. View "Working Families of Monterey County v. King City Planning Com." on Justia Law