Senske Rentals, LLC, appeals a district court’s order affirming the City of Grand Forks Special Assessment Commission’s decision to specially assess property for street improvements. Senske argues the Special Assessment Commission acted in an arbitrary, capricious, and legally unreasonable manner by failing to comply with the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 40-23-07 to determine the assessment to its properties. Finding Senske has not met its burden to show the assessments were invalid or that the Commission failed to comply with the statutory requirements under N.D.C.C. § 40-23-07, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Senske Rentals, et al. v. City of Grand Forks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the single justice of the appeals court reversing the denial of Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and vacated the injunction, holding that the single justice abused her discretion in enjoining Defendants from enforcing their December 2021 amended COVID-19 vaccination policy.Plaintiffs - the Boston Firefighters Union, the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation, and others - filed a complaint challenging Defendants' unilateral amendment of the COVID-19 vaccination policy for all city of Boston employees, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The superior court denied Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief, but a single justice of the appeals court reversed and ordered the entry of a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the single justice abused her discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction because the potential harm to the city resulting from the spread of COVID-19 clearly outweighed the economic harm to employees. View "Boston Firefighters Union, Local 718, Internat'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO v. City of Boston" on Justia Law

After the EEOC closed its investigation into Plaintiff’s charge of discrimination, the agency issued Plaintiff a right-to-sue notice. This notice, however, only reached Plaintiff’s attorney and not Plaintiff himself. The EEOC then sent a subsequent notice acknowledging that the first had not reached Plaintiff and advising him that his 90-day window in which to file suit began to run upon its—the second notice’s—receipt. Plaintiff filed his complaint 141 days after his attorney is presumed to have received the first notice and 89 days after Plaintiff and his attorney received the second. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s suit as untimely and held that equitable tolling was unavailable.   The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint. The court explained that Plaintiff’s case did not present the kind of exceptional circumstances that may warrant equitable tolling; the district court failed to consider controlling precedent from this court that tolling may be available when the EEOC affirmatively misleads a claimant about the time in which he must file his federal complaint. The court wrote that this was an abuse of discretion. Further, the court found that the district court did not proceed beyond this first prong of the tolling analysis the record at this motion to dismiss stage does not disclose whether Plaintiff diligently pursued his rights. View "Bernstein v. Maximus Federal Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus compelling the Delaware County Board of Elections to place a township-zoning referendum petition on the May 2, 2023 ballot or, alternatively, the November 7, 2023 ballot, holding that Relator was entitled to the writ.In sustaining a protest to the referendum petition at issue, the Board determined that the petition failed to satisfy Ohio Rev. Code 519.12(H) because, among other things, it failed adequately to describe the nature of the requested zoning change. Relator then filed this expedited election action. The Supreme Court granted relief and ordered the Board of Elections to place the referendum on the May 2, 2023 ballot, holding that the Board abused its discretion and disregarded applicable law in deciding that the petition summary was deficient. View "State ex rel. Pinkston v. Delaware County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

In the 1970s-1980s, the County approved maps for two subdivisions bordered by a tributary of “Murderer’s Creek.” The creek is a natural watercourse that is the main receptacle for storm runoff emanating from the watershed above the properties and is the only reasonable means of collecting and conveying that runoff. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, the County required the developers to make drainage improvements to collect and convey water from the subdivisions to the creek. Contributing to runoff were two private roads serving as ingress and egress to the subdivisions and one county-owned road. adjacent to one subdivision. As provided by the Map Act, the County required the developers to dedicate drainage easements to the County. When it approved the subdivision maps, however, the County did not accept the offers of dedication. The drainage improvements remained in the ownership of the developers and later the homeowners.The owners bought lots in those subdivisions in 2010 and 2016. They sued the County and a flood control district for inverse condemnation and tort claims after drainage improvements constructed more than 40 years earlier failed and serious erosion and subsidence damaged their properties. The superior court rejected the suit on summary judgment. The court of appeal affirmed. As a matter of law, a public entity must either own or exercise actual control over a waterway or drainage improvements to render them public works for which the public entity is responsible. View "Shenson v. County of Contra Costa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by Relator ordering the Washington County Board of Elections to place his name on the May 2, 2023 primary election ballot as a Democratic candidate for mayor of Marietta and a motion to strike the Board's brief as untimely, holding that the Board did not abuse its discretion.On January 17, 2023, Relator filed his nominating petition and declaration of candidacy with the Board. The Board voted not to certify Relator's candidacy for the primary-election ballot after determining that Ohio Rev. Code 3513.06 required Relator to list his former name on his nominating petition because the name change had occurred within the last five years. The Supreme Court denied Relator's ensuing petition seeking a writ of mandamus, holding that the Board did not abuse its discretion or clearly disregard applicable law in declining to certify Relator's name to the ballot. The Court further denied Relator's motion to strike the Board's brief as untimely. View "State ex rel. Gold v. Washington County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the denial of a records request made pursuant to the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA), holding that holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying the petition.A reporter for Las Vegas Review-Journal, Inc. (LVRJ) made an NPRA request concerning an investigation into potential criminal activity by a law enforcement officer. After denying the request several times, the police department conducting the investigation, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) ultimately released heavily redacted portions of the investigative files. Metro sought relief, but the district court denied the petition on the grounds that the investigative files contained confidential and private information not subject to public release. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Metro failed to meet its burden to establish under the NPRA that the requested records were confidential in their entirety under either a statutory or caselaw exemption. View "Las Vegas Review-Journal v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dep't" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the appellate court dismissing Appellant's appeal of the circuit court's ruling affirming the judgment of the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights finding no probable cause to believe that Krav Maga MD, LLC (KMMD) engaged in disability discrimination, holding that the appellate court correctly dismissed Appellant's appeal.Appellant alleged that KMMD, her gym, engaged in disability discrimination by deleting a comment that Appellant had posted on the gym's Facebook account relating to her disability and then later by terminating her membership. The Commission ultimately found no probable cause the find that KMMD had discriminated against Appellant based on her disability. The circuit court affirmed the Commission's finding of no probable cause. On appeal, the appellate court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant's appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the appellate court correctly dismissed Appellant's appeal. View "Rowe v. Md. Comm'n on Civil Rights" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a federal inmate, sued Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) staff alleging, inter alia, discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act. The district court dismissed the action for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. According to the court, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) required Plaintiff to exhaust both the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program and an additional remedy, particular to prison discrimination claims, administered by the Department of Justice’s Director of Equal Employment Opportunity. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that he was only required to exhaust the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiff asserted in the alternative that the Department of Justice remedies were not “available” to him.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the PLRA’s exhaustion provision is plain. It requires prisoners to utilize all “available” administrative remedies. For Rehabilitation Act claimants, these remedies include both the BOP’s ARP and a separate EEO process administered by the DOJ. Here, Plaintiff failed to exhaust these remedies despite them being “available” to him under the PLRA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice to his ability to exhaust the EEO remedies “available” to him within the meaning of the PLRA. View "Webster Williams, III v. Michael Carvajal" on Justia Law

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (‘‘MVP’’) submitted an application requesting both a Virginia Water Protection individual permit (“VWP Permit”) from Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) and the State Water Control Board (the “Board”) (collectively, “the Agencies”) and a certification from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Army Corps”) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) to build a pipeline. After an extensive review of MVP’s application, the Board adopted DEQ’s recommendation to approve MVP’s application. Petitioners filed this action against the Agencies and several individuals associated with the Agencies (collectively, “Respondents”), asking the court to review the Agencies’ decision.   The Fourth Circuit denied the petition for review, concluding that Agencies’ decision to grant MVP’s application was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court explained that Petitioners’ argument that the Agencies failed to consider whether the Pipeline will comply with Virginia’s narrative water quality standard is belied by the record. DEQ addressed this issue in its responses to the public comments, in which it listed a host of conditions that it placed on the VWP Permit to “ensure that Virginia’s water quality is protected both during and after construction.” The court further explained that the DEQ described the indicators it uses to measure water quality, which Petitioners have not challenged. Accordingly, the court found it is clear from the record that DEQ considered a variety of factors in determining that the construction and operation of the Pipeline would comply with Virginia’s narrative water quality standard. View "Sierra Club v. State Water Control Board" on Justia Law