The case revolves around Pureza “Didit” Martinez, who was terminated from her position at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at the age of 72. She filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination against the Health Sciences Center, the Texas Tech University System, and the Texas Tech University System’s Board of Regents. The Texas Tech University System and the Board of Regents argued that they were not Martinez's employer and thus retained sovereign immunity.Previously, the trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas Tech University System and the Board of Regents, and the court of appeals affirmed this decision. The defendants argued that Martinez failed to plead allegations that could make them liable for age discrimination under the Labor Code, essentially denying being Martinez’s employer.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the lower courts' decisions. The court found that Martinez's petition did not allege facts demonstrating that the Texas Tech University System or the Board of Regents employed Martinez directly or that either one controlled access to and interfered with her employment. Therefore, the court concluded that Martinez failed to allege a waiver of sovereign immunity, and the plea to the jurisdiction of the Texas Tech University System and the Board of Regents should have been granted. However, the court remanded the case to the trial court to give Martinez an opportunity to replead, as her petition did not foreclose a valid claim against those defendants. View "Texas Tech University System v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Sally Splittgerber suffered a fall while walking on a city sidewalk, leading to a personal injury lawsuit against the owner of the adjacent property, the lessee of that property (Bankers Trust), and the City of Des Moines. The plaintiffs alleged that these parties were negligent in maintaining the uneven sidewalk. After settling the claims, Bankers Trust sought contribution from the City for the settlement payment, arguing that the City, not the property owner or lessee, was responsible for maintaining the sidewalk.The district court, relying on the precedent set in Madden v. City of Iowa City, granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The court held that the City could impose liability on abutting landowners for damages resulting from other types of failures to maintain sidewalks, beyond just snow and ice removal. Bankers Trust appealed this decision, asking the Supreme Court of Iowa to overrule the Madden decision.The Supreme Court of Iowa agreed with Bankers Trust, stating that the Madden decision was wrongly decided. The court found that the City's attempt to shift costs and liability to abutting landowners for sidewalk maintenance and accidents beyond what the state statute allows was in direct conflict with the legislature's express determination about where such burdens reside. The court noted that the statute only permits cities to require abutting landowners to repair sidewalks if the city first notifies the landowners by certified mail that a repair is necessary, and only permits cities to hold abutting landowners liable for damages if they fail to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk.The court overruled the Madden decision, reversed the district court's summary judgment ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Bankers Trust Company v. City Of Des Moines" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Ron Myers, suffered a leg injury after slipping on a diving board at a city pool in Cedar Falls, Iowa. He sued the City of Cedar Falls, alleging that the diving board lacked a slip-resistant surface required by state regulations. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability under Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(l), which grants immunity to operators of municipal swimming pools unless there is a "knowing" violation of regulations. The district court granted the City's motion, concluding that Myers failed to establish a "knowing" violation of the regulations.Myers appealed the decision, and the case was transferred to the court of appeals. The court of appeals reversed the district court's decision, finding that there were factual questions about the condition of the diving board that precluded summary judgment. The City then sought further review from the Supreme Court of Iowa.The Supreme Court of Iowa accepted the City's invitation to overrule a previous decision, Sanon v. City of Pella, which had interpreted the "criminal offense" exception to immunity for operators of municipal swimming pools under Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(l) to include violations of agency regulations. The court found that Sanon was "egregiously wrong" and had caused ongoing problems. The court held that the legislature did not make violating swimming pool regulations a criminal offense, and therefore, the City was immune from liability under Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(l). The court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the district court's summary judgment. View "Myers v. City of Cedar Falls" on Justia Law

The appellant, A.G., was arraigned on four juvenile delinquency petitions for attempted robbery, attempted first degree assault, reckless conduct, and falsifying physical evidence when he was 17 years old. The Circuit Court found probable cause and determined that A.G. met the standard for secure detention, placing him at the Youth Detention Services Unit (YDSU). The State later filed a petition to certify A.G. as an adult and transfer the case to superior court, which remains pending. As A.G. was about to turn 18, a hearing was held to address his placement. The court ruled that A.G. would be transferred to the Hillsborough County House of Corrections (HOC) upon his eighteenth birthday.A.G. appealed this decision, arguing that the circuit court lacks authority to order his detention at the HOC. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire agreed, stating that the circuit court is a court of limited jurisdiction with powers conferred upon it by statute. The court found no statutory authority for the circuit court to detain A.G. at the HOC, as he has neither been adjudicated delinquent nor certified as an adult.The State argued that the circuit court could continue A.G.’s detention at YDSU, even after his eighteenth birthday, while awaiting action on the petition to certify him as an adult. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the term "minor" in the relevant statute continues to apply to A.G. after his eighteenth birthday. The court reversed the trial court’s order transferring A.G. to the HOC and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "In re A.G." on Justia Law

Felissa Jones, the mother of an elementary school student, reported to the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (MDCPS) that her son had suffered abuse and neglect by staff at his school. MDCPS responded that it does not investigate reports of abuse at school. Jones then sued MDCPS, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief related to MDCPS’s policy that the agency does not investigate allegations of abuse in out-of-home settings such as schools.The Hinds County Chancery Court denied Jones's motion for a judgment in her favor on the pleadings and granted MDCPS's motion for a judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Jones's complaint. The court ruled that Jones's request for declaratory relief related to MDCPS’s former intake policy was moot because the policy was no longer in effect. It also ruled that the current intake policy does not violate the relevant statutes, but instead conforms to the statutory mandate to refer allegations of child abuse in out-of-home settings to local law enforcement.In the Supreme Court of Mississippi, Jones appealed the lower court's decisions. The court affirmed the lower court's rulings, stating that MDCPS does not have a duty to investigate reports of abuse in out-of-home settings, such as schools, because children who are mistreated by school staff do not fall under the youth court’s limited jurisdiction. The court also found that Jones's claim for declaratory relief from the amended policy had no merit because the policy tracks the relevant statutes. View "Jones v. Department of Child Protection Services" on Justia Law

The case involves Bacardi & Company Limited and Bacardi USA, Inc. (collectively, Bacardi) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Bacardi claimed that the PTO violated Section 9 of the Lanham Act and its own regulations by renewing a trademark registration ten years after it expired. The trademark in question is the "HAVANA CLUB," originally registered by a Cuban corporation, José Arechabala, S.A. In 1960, the Cuban government seized the corporation's assets, and by 1974, the U.S. trademark registrations for HAVANA CLUB rum had expired. Later, a company owned by the Cuban government registered the HAVANA CLUB trademark in the U.S. for itself. Bacardi, which had bought the interest in the mark from Arechabala, filed its own application to register the HAVANA CLUB mark and petitioned the PTO to cancel the Cuban government-owned company's registration.The PTO denied Bacardi's application due to the Cuban government-owned company's preexisting registration, and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) denied Bacardi's cancellation petition. Bacardi then filed a civil action challenging the TTAB's denial of cancellation. Meanwhile, the Cuban government-owned company's registration was set to expire in 2006, unless it renewed its trademark. However, due to a trade embargo, the company was not permitted to pay the required renewal fee without first obtaining an exception from the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). OFAC denied the company's request for an exception, and the PTO notified the company that its registration would expire due to the failure to submit the renewal fee on time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment that dismissed Bacardi's lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the Lanham Act does not foreclose an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) action for judicial review of the PTO’s compliance with statutes and regulations governing trademark registration renewal. The court found that the Lanham Act does not expressly preclude judicial review of PTO registration renewal decisions or fairly implies congressional intent to do so. Therefore, the APA’s mechanism for judicial review remains available. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Bacardi and Company Limited v. United States Patent & Trademark Office" on Justia Law

In 2020, the Town of Hideout, Utah, took advantage of a brief window in state law that allowed municipalities to annex unincorporated areas without a petition or county consent. Hideout annexed an area in Summit County, and after receiving a certificate of annexation from the Lieutenant Governor, Summit County challenged the annexation and the related municipal ordinance in district court. The district court ruled in favor of Summit County, finding that it had standing to challenge the annexation and declaring the annexation ordinance invalid.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reversed the district court's decisions. The court found that the relevant statutory scheme, the annexation code, did not provide Summit County with a legally protectible interest that would allow it to obtain the relief it sought. The court also found that the statutory provisions outside the annexation code that Summit County relied on did not provide it with a legally protectible interest in the controversy. The court further held that the doctrine of public interest standing, on which the district court alternatively relied, was inapplicable in this case.Because the court concluded that Summit County lacked standing to pursue its claims, it also reversed the district court’s award of summary judgment in Summit County’s favor without addressing the merits of Summit County’s claims. The case was remanded to the district court for dismissal. View "Hideout v. Summit County" on Justia Law

In 2018, a group of citizens in Tooele County, Utah, initiated the process to incorporate an area known as the City of Erda. The incorporation process involved several steps, including obtaining signatures from property owners within the proposed area, conducting a feasibility study, and holding a public vote. After the incorporation was certified by the Lieutenant Governor, three landowners within Erda's boundaries—John Bleazard, Mark Bleazard, and Six Mile Ranch Company—challenged the incorporation. They alleged that the incorporation process violated statutory requirements, including that their signatures were misrepresented in the feasibility study request and that the notice of impending boundary action was untimely.The district court in Tooele County denied motions to dismiss the case brought by the City of Erda and the Lieutenant Governor. They had argued that the landowners lacked statutory standing to challenge the incorporation. The court disagreed, finding that the landowners had a legally protectible interest under the Utah Code, which it interpreted as contemplating the possibility of a challenge to an incorporation.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reversed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the landowners' claim for declaratory relief was non-justiciable because they lacked a legally protectible interest in the controversy. The court found that the landowners did not have a private right of action to enforce the requirements of the incorporation code. The court concluded that the landowners' claim must be dismissed as a matter of law. View "Bleazard v. City of Erda" on Justia Law

In Utah, a group of local citizens sponsored the incorporation of an area in Tooele County to be known as the City of Erda. After the Lieutenant Governor certified Erda’s incorporation, three landowners within Erda’s boundaries challenged the incorporation, alleging statutory violations during the incorporation process. The defendants, Erda and the Lieutenant Governor, moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the landowners lacked statutory standing. The district court disagreed and denied their motions to dismiss.The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Utah, arguing that the landowners' claim for declaratory relief should be dismissed as it is non-justiciable. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the landowners’ claim must be dismissed as a matter of law because it is non-justiciable. The court found that under Utah law, a declaratory judgment action is non-justiciable if the plaintiff lacks a protectible legal interest in the controversy. The court concluded that the landowners did not have a protectible legal interest in their claim because the legislature did not grant affected citizens a private right of action to enforce the incorporation code’s requirements. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s decision. View "Bleazard v. Henderson" on Justia Law

In 2000, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of mifepristone tablets, marketed under the brand name Mifeprex, for terminating pregnancies up to seven weeks. The FDA imposed additional restrictions on the drug's use and distribution, including requiring doctors to prescribe or supervise the prescription of Mifeprex and requiring patients to have three in-person visits with the doctor to receive the drug. In 2016, the FDA relaxed some of these restrictions, and in 2021, it announced that it would no longer enforce the initial in-person visit requirement. Four pro-life medical associations and several individual doctors moved for a preliminary injunction that would require the FDA to either rescind approval of mifepristone or rescind the FDA’s 2016 and 2021 regulatory actions.The District Court agreed with the plaintiffs and effectively enjoined the FDA's approval of mifepristone, ordering it off the market. The FDA and Danco Laboratories, which sponsors Mifeprex, appealed and moved to stay the District Court’s order pending appeal. The Supreme Court ultimately stayed the District Court’s order pending the disposition of proceedings in the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court. On the merits, the Fifth Circuit held that plaintiffs had standing and concluded that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their challenge to FDA’s 2000 and 2019 drug approvals, but were likely to succeed in showing that FDA’s 2016 and 2021 actions were unlawful. The Supreme Court granted certiorari with respect to the 2016 and 2021 FDA actions.The Supreme Court of the United States held that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the FDA’s actions regarding the regulation of mifepristone. The Court found that the plaintiffs, who are pro-life and oppose elective abortion, have sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to mifepristone being prescribed and used by others. However, because the plaintiffs do not prescribe or use mifepristone, they are unregulated parties who seek to challenge the FDA’s regulation of others. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs' theories of causation were insufficient to establish Article III standing. The Court reversed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine" on Justia Law