Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Victor Bravo Aviation, LLC purchased an aircraft in Connecticut in 2004 that was flown to Victor Bravo in Connecticut. Victor Bravo did not register the aircraft in Maine but used it regularly in Maine during the first twelve months of ownership. In 2007, the State Tax Assessor assessed Victor Bravo a use tax on its aircraft plus interest, penalties and costs. Victor Bravo appealed. The Business and Consumer Docket entered summary judgment for the Assessor affirming the assessment of the tax and interest, and judgment for Victor Bravo waiving and abating the non-payment penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed except vacated and remanded the issue of interest waiver or abatement. On remand, the court declined to waive or abate the interest as of the date of the reconsideration decision. Victor Bravo appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court properly considered Victor Bravo's arguments for failure to pay the use tax and deemed them unsatisfactory to warrant a waiver or abatement of interest under the statutory scheme.

This case required the Supreme Court to answer a threshold question concerning whether an appeal in this insurance company rehabilitation case could go forward. The court of appeals granted the motion of the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance to dismiss the appeal by the United States. The Commissioner had argued that the appeal should be dismissed either on the grounds that the notice of appeal was fundamentally defective such that the court of appeals had no jurisdiction or on the grounds that the United States had waived its right to appeal issues by failing to appear in the circuit court. The court of appeals concluded that the notice of appeal did not include a signature of an "attorney of record" as Wis. Stat. 802.05 required and dismissed on jurisdictional grounds without deciding the waiver issue. The Supreme Court affirmed on the basis of waiver, holding that the U.S.'s failure to litigate any issues involved in the circuit court precluded the U.S. from pursuing relief in the court of appeals.

Anthem Health Plans of Maine appealed from a judgment entered in the Business and Consumer Docket affirming a decision by the Superintendent of Insurance (1) determining that Anthem's proposed rate increase for its individual health insurance products was excessive and unfairly discriminatory, and (2) indicating that an average rate increase with a lower profit margin for those products would be approved. Anthem appealed, contending that the Superintendent's decision violated Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 24-A, 2736 (the statute) and the state and federal Constitutions because the approved rate increase eliminated Anthem's opportunity to earn a reasonable profit on its line of individual health insurance products. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Superintendent properly balanced the competing interests within the statutory framework of the statute in arriving at its approved rate increase; and (2) because the approved rate provided a built-in risk and profit margin, Anthem's argument that the Superintendent improperly cross-subsidized between Anthem's regulated and unregulated product lines, and the corollary argument that the approved rate resulted in an unconstitutional confiscatory taking, necessarily failed as a matter of law.

This case arose from a district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies of Petitioner-Appellant Daniel Fuchs's petition for judicial review and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Petitioner challenged the Alcohol Beverage Control's (ABC) removal of his name from liquor license priority waiting lists. He argued that the agency's action constituted an informal rule that was not promulgated in accordance with the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act (Idaho APA). In response, ABC argued that Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing his action before the district court, and that the removal was done in accordance with Idaho APA. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court erred in finding that Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, but that Petitioner did not have a property interest in his place on the priority list (since the legislature did not have the authority to create such an interest). Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision.

Petitioner Accord Human Resources, Inc. (Accord) is a professional employer organization that transacts business in Colorado along with four related entities. In 2004, Accord transferred a portion of its Colorado employees to another Accord entity with a lower unemployment tax rate and in doing so, reduced its unemployment tax burden. The Colorado Division of Employment and Training determined that it had authority to treat the various Accord entities as one for purposes of assessing unemployment taxes, thus erasing any tax advantage that could be gained through the employee transfer. Under this rationale, the Division issued a delinquent tax notice to Accord. Accord appealed, and the hearing officer reversed. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the Industrial Claim Appeals Office's Final Order and reinstated the hearing officer's decision. The Division sought to reverse the court of appeals decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, finding that nothing gave the Division authority to combine separate employer tax accounts into one account for purposes of assessing unemployment taxes.

Relators brought a qui tam action against defendant and its subsidiaries, alleging violations of the reverse false claim provision of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(7). Relators subsequently appealed the district court's dismissal, with prejudice, of their third amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court held that relators failed to allege with particularity, as required by Rule 9(b), that defendants knowingly made false statements for the purpose of concealing or avoiding an obligation to pay money to the government. Count I alleged that the 2008 Certification of Compliance was false due to the failure to report or remit the million dollars in identified Overpayments, and that defendants made and used the Certification to conceal and avoid the obligation to remit Overpayments. Count II involved the same obligation to remit Overpayments within thirty days but was based on a separate scheme and separate false records. The court held that relators have sufficiently pled each element of a reverse false claim for the Certification of Compliance and the district court's dismissal of Count I was reversed. The court also held that relators have pled all the remaining elements for a reverse false claim for the Discovery Samples and thus, the district court's dismissal of Count II was reversed.

The Industrial Commission and Slawson Exploration Company appealed a district court judgment that reversed the Commission's assessment of a risk penalty against Gadeco, LLC. The issue in this case arose from a challenge to the validity of an invitation to participate in the cost of drilling a well which resulted in the Commission's assessment of a 200 percent risk penalty. Because the Supreme Court was unable to discern the basis for the Commission's decision, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the Commission for the preparation of findings that explain the reasons for its decision.

Plaintiff sued the State to challenge a demand for payment made by the State under Delaware's escheat law, 12 Del. C. 1101, et seq. The State countersued, seeking a declaration that the sums demanded from plaintiff were proper and authorized under the Statute. Both parties moved for partial judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the rebates at issue fit comfortably within two of the "specifically enumerated" items of property listed in section 1198(11) and therefore granted the State's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and denied plaintiff's cross-motion. Although the pleadings did not paint a clear picture of the form in which the rebates were issued by plaintiff to its customers, plaintiff's counsel conceded at oral argument that the rebates were issued as either negotiable "checks" or "credits." As such, the rebates consisted of specifically enumerated items of property under section 1198(11), and the State's claims could not be barred by any statute of limitations.

Petitioner National Labor Relations Board (the Board or NLRB) sought enforcement of its order against Respondent Contemporary Cars, Inc. (Contemporary). In 2008, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (the Union) filed a petition with the Board seeking certification as the representative of Mercedes-Benz service technicians employed at Contemporary. The Board held a hearing, determined the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate under two different theories, and directed that an election occur. Contemporary requested that the Board review the Regional Director’s decision regarding the bargaining unit. Despite only having two members, the Board summarily denied the request. Members of the bargaining unit voted in for representation by the Union, and the Regional Director certified the Union. To preserve its right to challenge the validity of the bargaining-unit determination in a court of appeals, Contemporary refused to bargain. The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board. Contemporary conceded the violation, and in 2009, the two-member Board issued an order finding Contemporary in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). Contemporary filed a petition for review of the NLRB’s order with the federal district court. The NLRB cross-petitioned seeking enforcement. The circuit court granted Contemporary's motion to hold the case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision in "New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB" (130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010)). In 2010, the NLRB issued an order setting aside its previous two-member decision to "take further action as appropriate." The original two members plus an obligatory third member issued a new order, again affirming the Regional Director's bargaining-unit decision. The NLRB subsequently filed a petition for enforcement of its order with the Eleventh Circuit. Upon review, the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Contemporary's due process challenge raised on appeal of the 2010 NLRB order. Furthermore, Contemporary did not meet its burden of demonstrating the Board's determination lacked substantial evidentiary support. Therefore, the Court granted the NLRB's petition.

Plaintiffs-Appellants James and Sandra Lindquist sued the City of Pasadena alleging the City violated their state and federal constitutional rights by exercising "unbridled discretion" in connection with the denial of a zoning waiver. Plaintiffs operated a used-car dealership in Pasadena. In 2003, the Pasadena City Council enacted an ordinance adopting licensing standards for used-car dealers criminalizing the sale of used cars without a license and imposing a number of requirements that dealers must meet as a condition of receiving a license. Two of those requirements were the subject of this appeal: (1) new license locations are required to be a minimum of one-thousand feet from any existing license; and (2) no new licenses could be issued within 150 feet of a residential area. After the ordinance was passed, Plaintiffs considered purchasing two lots to expand their existing dealership. City officials told them that neither lot qualified for a license, but Plaintiffs purchased the lots anyway. Plaintiffs later learned that their competitors purchased a nearby lot, had applied for a license, and were denied for different reasons than those given to Plaintiffs. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling that Plaintiffs' equal protection claim failed to state a claim for relief. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to the City after determining Plaintiffs failed to create a genuine issue of fact with respect to their equal protection claim. Upon review, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Plaintiffs could not show that the City Council acted irrationally when it denied their license appeal. Furthermore, the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to preserve their unbridled discretion claim for further review. As such, the Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City.