The case involved a medical negligence and wrongful death claim arising from care provided to a resident at a county-owned skilled nursing facility in Nebraska. The plaintiffs, the decedent’s personal representative and surviving spouse, alleged that substandard care by the facility’s staff caused fatal injuries. The suit was initiated against several entities purportedly associated with the facility, but only two remained as defendants after some were dismissed for procedural reasons.After the complaint was filed in the District Court for Merrick County, the primary remaining defendant, identified as Litzenberg Memorial Long Term Care, moved to dismiss the case. The defendant argued that the complaint failed to demonstrate compliance with the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act’s presuit notice requirement, claiming that notice was not properly served on the appropriate official. Before the court ruled on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to clarify factual allegations regarding compliance with presuit notice and to correct the defendant’s name. The proposed amendment included details suggesting that the Merrick County clerk was an appropriate recipient for notice, and asserted that the defendant should be estopped from contesting notice due to representations made by the clerk.The district court denied the motion for leave to amend and granted the motion to dismiss, finding the amendment would be futile because the notice had not been properly served. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court determined that under the applicable procedural rule, the plaintiffs were entitled to amend their complaint once as a matter of course prior to any responsive pleading. The court held that filing a motion for leave to amend did not waive this right. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing that the plaintiffs be allowed to amend their complaint. View "Cyboron v. Merrick County" on Justia Law

A commercial fisherman from Erie County, Ohio, who owned a fisheries business, challenged a state rule that amended commercial fishing regulations to exclude seine fishers from receiving yellow perch quotas. The rule, promulgated by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Wildlife, allocated quotas exclusively to trap net fishers and prohibited the transfer of quotas to seine licenses. The fisherman alleged that this rule deprived him of economic value and constituted a taking without compensation, and further brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy against both state and federal defendants.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The district court dismissed with prejudice all claims against Ohio and the state officials, holding that there was no protected property interest in the value of a fishing license or uncaught fish under the Takings Clause. The court also found that sovereign immunity barred all claims against the state and its officials, even if the claims otherwise had merit, and determined the state law claims were insufficiently pled. Claims against the federal defendants were dismissed without prejudice for defective service of process.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that sovereign immunity barred the takings and state law claims against Ohio and the state officials, rejecting the appellant’s arguments that these defendants had waived immunity or that recent Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Court decisions required judicial review of the state rule. However, the appellate court held that because the dismissal was based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the claims against the state defendants should have been dismissed without prejudice. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the federal defendants. The judgment was thus affirmed in part and reversed in part, with instructions to dismiss the state claims without prejudice. View "White's Landing Fisheries, Inc. v. Ohio Dep't of Nat. Res. Div. of Wildlife" on Justia Law

A federal prisoner was sentenced in December 2020 and, due to pending charges in another jurisdiction, was held at a detention center in Rhode Island rather than being promptly transferred to his designated Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facility in South Carolina. During this period of post-sentencing detention, the prisoner claims to have participated in programs under the First Step Act (FSA), thereby accruing approximately 150 days of time credits, which could reduce his time in custody. However, the BOP did not recognize these credits because he had not undergone a formal risk and needs assessment—the BOP’s prerequisite for awarding such credits—until his eventual arrival at the designated facility in March 2022.After exhausting administrative remedies, the prisoner filed a pro se habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, seeking recognition of his alleged FSA credits. The magistrate judge, without briefing or discovery, recommended dismissal. The district court adopted this recommendation, concluding that the BOP’s regulation reasonably required an initial assessment before credits could be earned, and applied Chevron deference to uphold the agency's interpretation. The district court also found no evidence the prisoner had “successfully participated” in qualifying programs before arrival at the BOP facility and dismissed the petition without prejudice, refusing to require a government response.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded. The Fourth Circuit held that the case was not moot, as the prisoner could still benefit from the FSA credits if his risk status changed or a warden approved his release. The court further held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned Chevron deference, the district court must independently determine whether the BOP’s interpretation of “successful participation” aligns with the best reading of the statute. View "Benson v. Warden FCI Edgefield" on Justia Law

Scott Martin operated a business in Harris County, Texas, gathering contact information of criminal defendants from public court records and selling it to private attorneys. His business relied primarily on access to bail bond orders, which contained defendants’ addresses and other contact details. In June 2023, the then-presiding judge of the Harris County Criminal Courts at Law issued an administrative order instructing the district clerk to keep the contents of certain bond orders in misdemeanor cases confidential, making only the title, filing date, and page enumeration available to the public. This significantly reduced the information Martin could access, leading to substantial business losses. Martin unsuccessfully sought reconsideration of the order and then filed suit, asserting constitutional and statutory claims and seeking injunctive relief and damages.The case was heard by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The defendants, including the district clerk and judges, moved to dismiss, arguing the order did not violate any constitutional right and that they were immune from suit. The district court, after a hearing, granted the motion to dismiss. The court determined that under Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., Martin’s First Amendment claim failed because the order merely restricted access to government information, not speech. It also found no plausible claim under the Sixth Amendment or Texas law, and concluded Martin had no property interest in the information.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that restricting access to the information in government possession does not violate the First Amendment, and Martin’s other constitutional and state law arguments lacked merit. The court also rejected Martin’s ultra vires claim, finding the judge acted within her statutory authority. Thus, the dismissal was affirmed. View "Martin v. Burgess" on Justia Law

A patient experienced severe complications following a routine appendectomy at a county hospital in Wyoming, leading to a diagnosis of short bowel syndrome. The surgery was performed by a hospital-employed physician. The following day, the patient suffered further abdominal issues and was transferred to another hospital, where emergency surgery resulted in substantial removal of her small intestine. The patient, initially a minor, sued the hospital and two of its physicians for medical malpractice, alleging their negligence under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The hospital admitted the physicians were employees and that it was vicariously liable for their actions. As a defense, the hospital asserted that liability was limited by statute to $1 million.After these events, the District Court of Converse County denied the patient’s constitutional challenge to the statutory limitation, finding it was a limit on the waiver of immunity rather than damages. The case went to trial, where the jury awarded $8 million in total damages, with $3.2 million allocated against the hospital and the physician found liable. The court entered judgment for the full $3.2 million, despite the statutory limit. Motions for relief and further summary judgment followed, with the patient arguing the hospital’s operation of a statewide commercial healthcare enterprise should negate the statutory cap. The district court denied these motions, but clarified the hospital was not required to pay above the statutory limit.The Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming reviewed the case. It held the liability of the hospital and its physician is limited to $1 million under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, unless there is excess insurance coverage. The court found that operating a statewide commercial healthcare enterprise does not constitute a waiver of this statutory limitation. The judgment exceeding $1 million was reversed, and the case was remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the statutory cap. View "Memorial Hospital of Converse County v. Gates" on Justia Law

A parent applied to a state-run program providing compensation for family members who give extraordinary care to individuals with significant medical needs. The applicant’s young child required extensive daily assistance due to chronic health issues. The Department of Health and Human Services denied the application, explaining that the child’s score on a standardized assessment, created internally by the Department, did not meet the minimum threshold to qualify for the program. The assessment assigned points based on responses to a set of questions about the child’s needs, and only those scoring at least fifty percent of possible points for their age group were deemed eligible.After the application was denied, the parent pursued an administrative appeal. The administrative law judge upheld the denial, finding that, under the Department’s rules, only the assessment score determined eligibility for “extraordinary care,” and other medical details were not considered. The Department adopted this finding in a final order and denied a rehearing. The parent then appealed to the District Court of Burleigh County, which affirmed the Department’s decision.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether the Department could use the assessment and its scoring rubric to determine eligibility, even though these criteria had not been formally promulgated as administrative rules. The Court held that because these tools operated as binding eligibility requirements of general applicability, they were rules under North Dakota’s Administrative Agencies Practice Act and should have been formally adopted through the rulemaking process. The Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Ferderer v. NDDHHS" on Justia Law

State officials in Florida constructed an immigration detention facility at the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport, located in the Florida Everglades, using state funds and employees. The facility was built on state property and managed by state law enforcement, although federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials inspected the site and occasionally coordinated the transport and detention of individuals there. The state planned to seek federal reimbursement but had not received any federal funding at the time of the events in question. Several state agencies operated under agreements with the federal government, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), allowing them to assist with immigration enforcement, but Florida retained control over the facility’s management and construction.The Friends of the Everglades, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. They alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), claiming that officials failed to conduct a required environmental review before constructing and operating the facility. The district court issued a preliminary injunction halting further construction, requiring removal of certain structures, and prohibiting detention of additional individuals at the site. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, concluding that the construction was a final agency action and a major federal action under NEPA, and that federal officials exercised substantial control over the project.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate either a final agency action under the APA or substantial federal control necessary to trigger NEPA, given that Florida constructed and controlled the facility without federal funding or operational authority. The court also found that the district court’s injunction violated a statutory prohibition against enjoining immigration enforcement. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. View "Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

A Wisconsin statute enacted in 2023 required that electronic nicotine delivery systems (such as vapes and e-cigarettes) could only be sold in the state if they had received premarket authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), were pending FDA review as of specified dates, or did not contain nicotine. The law also imposed financial penalties and authorized private lawsuits against violators. Several businesses and consumers involved in the manufacture, distribution, retail, and use of these products challenged the statute, arguing that federal law granting the FDA authority over tobacco products preempted the Wisconsin statute. They also asserted that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause, and sought preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent enforcement.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court found that the Wisconsin law was not preempted by federal statutes, specifically the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). The court concluded that Congress had not intended to preempt states from imposing additional or more stringent requirements on the sale of tobacco products, and that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or that the balance of equities favored an injunction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit held that the text and structure of the relevant federal statutes, including the TCA’s preservation and savings clauses, demonstrated that Congress did not preempt state authority to regulate, or even prohibit, the sale of tobacco products. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their preemption claim. View "Wisconsinites for Alternatives to Smoking v. Casey" on Justia Law

A driver was stopped by a county deputy after allegedly committing traffic violations that led the officer to suspect impaired driving. The officer noted possible signs of intoxication and requested that the driver submit to alcohol testing, which the driver refused. Under Montana’s implied-consent law, the officer seized the driver’s license and issued a notice of automatic six-month suspension. The next day, the driver petitioned for judicial review, arguing that the officer lacked sufficient suspicion for the stop and the test requests.The Eighth Judicial District Court set an evidentiary hearing, but delays resulted from a combination of the petitioner’s request for a continuance due to jury duty and procedural orders requiring both parties to file briefs before a hearing could be held. The petitioner filed a brief, but the State did not, leaving the hearing vacated. Before the court ruled, the six-month suspension expired and the license was reinstated. When the petitioner moved to reset the hearing, the State moved to dismiss the case as moot, arguing that the only relief available was the return of the license, which had already occurred. The District Court agreed and dismissed the petition as moot.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the expiration of the suspension and reinstatement of the license rendered the case moot. The court held that the case was not moot because the petitioner’s timely challenge could still result in relief, such as removal of the suspension from his driving record and potential reimbursement of reinstatement fees. The court found that the statute contemplates judicial review even after the suspension period if the challenge was timely filed and pursued. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Kalafat v. State" on Justia Law

A ratepayer challenged a final order issued by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission that modified the rates charged by a public utility, the Public Service Company of Oklahoma. The utility had previously been authorized to add a charge to customer bills to pay ratepayer-backed bonds issued in response to high costs from a 2021 extreme weather event, pursuant to the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act. During the rate proceeding, the utility and several other parties presented evidence and entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by the Commission. The appellant, who did not participate in the Commission proceedings, sought reversal of the final order on the grounds that the utility did not provide sufficient evidence of a required audit, and that a Commissioner should have been disqualified. The appellant also attempted a collateral attack on orders from earlier proceedings related to the winter storm charges.The Oklahoma Corporation Commission reviewed and approved the proposed settlement and the stipulated rates after testimony and public comment. The appellant did not object at any stage of the Commission’s process, nor did he submit evidence or raise the issues he later brought on appeal. After the final order was entered, the appellant filed an appeal directly with the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, as permitted by the state constitution.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma held that while the appellant had standing as a ratepayer to appeal, the issues raised were not exhausted before the Corporation Commission and could not be considered for the first time on appeal. The Court further held that the appellant’s collateral attack on prior Commission orders was both procedurally barred and statutorily prohibited. The Supreme Court affirmed the final order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. View "GANN v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA." on Justia Law