High Maine, LLC, challenged the Town of Kittery's issuance of a marijuana retail store license and approval of a change of use and modified site plan for GTF Kittery 8, LLC, to operate a marijuana retail store in the Town’s C-2 zone. High Maine argued that the Town's actions violated local and state regulations, particularly concerning the proximity of the proposed store to a nursery school.The Superior Court (York County) dismissed High Maine's complaint for lack of standing, reasoning that High Maine, as a pre-applicant on the waiting list for a marijuana retail store license, did not suffer a particularized injury. The court concluded that High Maine's status as a prospective license-holder was unchanged by the Town's decisions, and thus, it was not directly affected.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and determined that High Maine had alleged a particularized injury sufficient to establish standing. The court noted that High Maine's opportunity to obtain the single license available in the C-2 zone was directly and negatively affected by the alleged defects in the licensing process. The court found that High Maine's complaint suggested that GTF Kittery 8 obtained an unfair advantage in the lottery by submitting multiple applications for the same building, which was within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of state law.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the Superior Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that High Maine's allegations were sufficient at the motion to dismiss stage to demonstrate its standing to challenge the Town's actions. View "High Maine, LLC v. Town of Kittery" on Justia Law

In this case, Appalachian Power Company and Wheeling Power Company sought to recover approximately $552.9 million in under-recovered costs for the period from March 1, 2021, through February 28, 2023. The Public Service Commission of West Virginia disallowed $231.8 million of the requested amount, concluding that the companies had made imprudent and unreasonable decisions regarding their coal stockpiling, which led to higher costs from purchasing energy rather than generating it themselves. The Commission allowed the recovery of the remaining $321.1 million over a ten-year period with a 4% carrying charge.The Commission's decision followed a series of proceedings, including the 2021 and 2022 ENEC cases, where it had expressed concerns about the companies' reliance on purchased power and their failure to maintain adequate coal supplies. The Commission had previously ordered the companies to increase self-generation and maintain a minimum 69% capacity factor for their coal-fired plants. Despite these directives, the companies continued to rely heavily on purchased power, leading to significant under-recoveries.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the Commission's finding that the companies acted imprudently and unreasonably. However, the Court reversed the Commission's disallowance of $231.8 million, finding that the Commission had relied on extra-record evidence (coal reports) without giving the companies notice or an opportunity to address this evidence, thus violating their due process rights. The Court remanded the case to the Commission to allow the companies to address the coal reports and the calculation of the disallowance. View "Appalachian Power Company and Wheeling Power Company v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia" on Justia Law

Laura Marie Obert, a former Broadwater County Commissioner, was investigated by the Montana Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) in 2015 for allegedly receiving unlawful overtime pay and potential ethics violations. In 2016, Obert entered a deferred prosecution agreement with the Assistant Attorney General, agreeing to repay the excess wages and abstain from voting on matters where she had a conflict of interest. In 2019, based on new allegations of violating the agreement, Obert was charged with felony theft and misdemeanor official misconduct. The district court dismissed these charges in 2021, finding Obert had complied with the agreement and there was insufficient evidence for the misconduct charge.Obert then sued the State of Montana and Broadwater County Attorney Cory Swanson, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, due process violations, and malicious prosecution. The First Judicial District Court dismissed her claims, leading to this appeal.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and made several determinations. It reversed the lower court's dismissal of Obert's breach of contract and good faith and fair dealing claims, holding that these claims were not time-barred and did not accrue until the criminal charges were dismissed. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Obert's bad faith claim, finding no special relationship existed between Obert and the State that would support such a claim. The court also upheld the dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim, ruling that Swanson was protected by prosecutorial immunity as he acted within his statutory duties. Lastly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the due process claim, concluding that Obert's procedural due process rights were not violated as the State followed proper procedures in charging her and the district court provided an appropriate forum to address the alleged breach of the agreement. View "Obert v State" on Justia Law

Amanda Shrewsbury, the respondent, was employed as a teacher’s aide in a pre-kindergarten classroom at Cumberland Heights Elementary School during the 2018-2019 school year. She reported witnessing abuse and neglect of students by the classroom teacher, Alma Belcher, to the school principal, Steve Hayes, and later to the superintendent, Dr. Deborah Akers. Following her complaints, Shrewsbury alleges that her employment was terminated. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Mercer County Board of Education, Dr. Akers, and others, claiming wrongful discharge and other related grievances.The Circuit Court of Mercer County reviewed the case and denied the petitioners' motion for summary judgment, which was based on the assertion of qualified immunity. The court found that the petitioners were not entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances presented.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the petitioners, as a political subdivision and an employee of a political subdivision, were not entitled to qualified immunity solely because the claims against them fell within the exceptions to statutory immunity set forth in the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act. The court clarified that the mere inapplicability of the Tort Claims Act due to specific exemptions does not permit the petitioners to claim qualified immunity. Therefore, the circuit court's denial of the motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity was upheld. View "Mercer County Board of Education v. Shrewsbury" on Justia Law

the State of Missouri bears no legal liability for any judgment against MOHELA. The Act makes clear that MOHELA’s debts and obligations are not debts or obligations of the State. See MO. REV. STAT. § 173.410. This includes any judgments against MOHELA. The State’s lack of legal liability for MOHELA’s debts and judgments is a strong indicator that MOHELA’s finances are independent from the State’s. See Hess, 513 U.S. at 51; Duke, 127 F.3d at 978.In sum, the third Steadfast factor weighs against arm-of-the-state status. MOHELA receives no direct financial assistance from the State, has the ability to generate its own revenue, retains control over its own funds, and the State bears no legal liability for MOHELA’s debts or judgments.d. Factor Four: State or Local AffairsThe fourth Steadfast factor considers whether the entity is concerned primarily with state or local affairs. This factor examines the entity’s function, composition, and purpose. See Hennessey, 53 F.4th at 528; Steadfast, 507 F.3d at 1253. Here, the district court concluded that this factor weighed in favor of arm-of-the-state status, and we agree.MOHELA’s primary function is to help Missourians access student loans needed to pay for college. See MO. REV. STAT. § 173.360. This is a statewide concern, not a local one. MOHELA’s activities are not confined to any particular locality within Missouri; rather, they are intended to benefit residents across the entire state. See Biden, 143 S. Ct. at 2366 (noting that MOHELA was established to perform the “essential public function” of helping Missourians access student loans).Moreover, MOHELA’s board is composed of members appointed by the Governor and representatives from state agencies, further indicating that its focus is on statewide, rather than local, affairs. See MO. REV. STAT. § 173.360. The fact that MOHELA’s profits are used to fund education in Missouri, including providing grants and scholarships for Missouri students, also supports the conclusion that MOHELA is concerned with state affairs. See Biden, 143 S. Ct. at 2366.In conclusion, the fourth Steadfast factor weighs in favor of arm-of-the-state status.3. The Second Step of the Arm-of-the-State Test: The Twin Goals of the Eleventh AmendmentBecause the Steadfast factors point in different directions, we proceed to the second step of the Hennessey test and consider the twin goals underlying the Eleventh Amendment: avoiding an affront to the dignity of the state and the impact of a judgment on the state treasury. See Hennessey, 53 F.4th at 528.As discussed above, the State of Missouri bears no legal liability for any judgment against MOHELA. This means that a judgment against MOHELA would not impact the state treasury. See Hess, 513 U.S. at 51; Duke, 127 F.3d at 978. The lack of impact on the state treasury is a strong indicator that MOHELA is not an arm of the state. See Hennessey, 53 F.4th at 528.Regarding the dignity of the state, MOHELA operates with substantial autonomy and is financially independent from the State. The State has not clearly demarcated MOHELA as sharing its sovereignty. See Hennessey, 53 F.4th at 529. Therefore, treating MOHELA as an arm of the state would not accord with the dignity interests protected by the Eleventh Amendment.In conclusion, considering the twin goals of the Eleventh Amendment, we determine that MOHELA is not an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Good v. United States Department of Education" on Justia Law

A group of organizations and a resident challenged a plan by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service (NPS) regulating tourist flights over four national parks near San Francisco. The agencies determined that no environmental analysis was needed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the plan would cause minimal additional environmental impact compared to existing conditions.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the agencies had previously announced their intent to prepare an environmental assessment but later terminated that process. The agencies then decided to use the existing number of flights as the baseline for their environmental analysis, concluding that the plan would have no significant environmental impact.The court held that the agencies acted arbitrarily by using the existing flights under interim operating authority as the baseline for their NEPA analysis. This approach effectively enshrined the status quo without evaluating the environmental impacts of the existing flights. The court found that the agencies' reliance on interim operating authority as the baseline was unreasonable and contrary to their duties under the National Parks Air Tour Management Act and NEPA.The court vacated the FAA's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the agencies to conduct a proper NEPA analysis. The court also noted that the agencies could move for a stay of the mandate if they wished to keep the current plan in place while conducting the new analysis. View "Marin Audubon Society v. FAA" on Justia Law

Grand Canyon University (GCU), a private university in Arizona, applied to the U.S. Department of Education to be recognized as a nonprofit institution under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA). The Department denied GCU’s application, despite GCU having obtained 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) recognition from the IRS as a tax-exempt organization. The Department concluded that GCU did not meet the operational test’s requirement that both the primary activities of the organization and its stream of revenue benefit the nonprofit itself.The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment in favor of the Department, upholding the denial of GCU’s application. The court found that the Department’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. GCU appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the Department applied the wrong legal standards in evaluating GCU’s application. Specifically, the Department incorrectly relied on IRS regulations that impose requirements beyond those of the HEA. The correct HEA standards required the Department to determine whether GCU was owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation and whether GCU satisfied the no-inurement requirement. The Department’s failure to apply these correct legal standards necessitated that its decision be set aside.The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case with instructions to set aside the Department’s denials and to remand to the Department for further proceedings consistent with the correct legal standards under the HEA. View "GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY V. CARDONA" on Justia Law

The case involves the termination of a police chief, Erica Barga, by the Village Council of St. Paris. Barga was placed on administrative leave by the mayor, who filed charges against her for insubordination and neglect of duty. Barga requested a public hearing to address these charges. The village council conducted the hearing in public but deliberated in executive session before voting to terminate Barga's employment.The Champaign County Court of Common Pleas upheld the village council's decision, concluding that Barga did not have a substantive or procedural right to have the entire disciplinary hearing open to the public. The court also found that the village council's decision was presumed valid and that Barga had not overcome this presumption.The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision regarding the Open Meetings Act, relying on a federal district court decision that exempted quasi-judicial proceedings from the Act. However, it found that the common pleas court had applied the wrong standard of review and remanded the case for a de novo review.The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals' decision, holding that the village council violated the Open Meetings Act by deliberating in executive session after Barga requested a public hearing. The court emphasized that the plain terms of the Act required the council to consider the charges in a public hearing. The court remanded the case to the village council for a public hearing in compliance with the Open Meetings Act. View "Barga v. St. Paris Village Council" on Justia Law

The case involves a criminal defendant charged with domestic violence offenses who served a pretrial subpoena on Clackamas Women’s Services (CWS) to obtain records related to services provided to the alleged victim (AV). CWS moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the records were protected under Oregon Evidence Code (OEC) 507-1 and ORS 147.600, which protect confidential communications and records created or maintained in the course of providing services to victims of domestic violence. The defendant sought the records to challenge AV’s credibility, claiming she fabricated her claims to obtain financial assistance.The Clackamas County Circuit Court quashed the subpoena in part but ordered CWS to produce records disclosing the cell phone information and financial assistance provided to AV. CWS sought mandamus relief from the Oregon Supreme Court, arguing that the records were protected under the statute and rule, and disclosure without AV’s consent was prohibited.The Oregon Supreme Court agreed with CWS, holding that the records ordered for production by the trial court were protected under OEC 507-1 and ORS 147.600. The court concluded that the statute and rule broadly protect all records created or maintained by CWS in the course of providing services to victims of domestic violence, including those that do not contain confidential communications. The court also determined that the trial court had no authority to require CWS to create a new document disclosing the information contained in the protected records. Consequently, the court issued a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its orders. View "State v. Sacco" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former officers of the City of Perris Police Department or their surviving spouses, claimed that the closure of the Perris PD and their subsequent hiring by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department resulted in a merger of the two departments under Government Code section 20508. They argued that this merger required Riverside County and the Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) to credit their service with the Perris PD as service with the Sheriff’s Department, entitling them to a more generous pension.The Superior Court of Riverside County found that section 20508 only applies when there is a merger of contracts between successive employing agencies and CalPERS. The court concluded that no such merger occurred because Riverside County did not assume any of the City’s municipal functions. Consequently, the service pensions for the Perris PD officers and the Sheriff’s Department deputies were calculated and paid out by CalPERS under separate contracts with the City and County, respectively. The court ruled in favor of the defendants, Riverside County and CalPERS.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that section 20508 requires an actual merger of the contracting agencies’ CalPERS contracts before the succeeding agency assumes any statutory obligations. The court found that the County did not assume the City’s municipal obligations but merely contracted to provide law enforcement services. Therefore, the requirements for a contract merger under section 20508 were not met. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the County and CalPERS were not required to treat the former police officers’ service as service with the Sheriff’s Department. View "Petree v. Public Employees' Retirement System" on Justia Law