Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

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

The case involves Amazon.com Services LLC and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB alleged that Amazon committed an unfair labor practice by discharging an employee for engaging in protected concerted activity. While the charge was pending before the Board, the Board sought temporary injunctive relief, including the employee’s reinstatement. The district court found "reasonable cause" to believe Amazon committed an unfair labor practice in terminating the employee. However, it concluded that ordering Amazon to cease and desist from committing certain violations of the Act was "just and proper," but that ordering Amazon to reinstate the employee was not.The district court's decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appellate court found that the district court did not adequately explain why the cease-and-desist order was just and proper, particularly in light of its conclusion that the employee’s reinstatement was not. Therefore, the injunction was vacated in part. The court noted that the district court's lack of explanation for granting the cease-and-desist order, coupled with its explicit, undisputed findings in rejecting the request to order the employee's reinstatement, cast serious doubt on the propriety of the cease-and-desist order. View "Poor v. Amazon.com Services LLC" on Justia Law

Augustina Dean, a former elementary school teacher, filed a workers' compensation claim with the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) in Hawaii, asserting she had suffered a work-related injury. The Director of the DLIR, however, found that Dean did not suffer a work-related injury. Dean appealed this decision to the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeal Board (LIRAB). The LIRAB reversed the Director's decision and ordered a new hearing. Following the new hearing, the Director awarded Dean $2,424.24 for "1% permanent partial disability of the whole person," and "medical care, services and supplies as the nature of the injury may require." Dean appealed this decision to the LIRAB, but the LIRAB refused to hear the case, arguing that Dean had missed the appeal deadline by one day.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) sided with the LIRAB, affirming its decision to dismiss Dean's appeal as untimely. The ICA relied on the precedent set in Kissell v. Lab. & Indus. Rels. Appeals Bd., which declared that the time for filing a written notice of appeal is mandatory. Dean, still self-represented, appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii vacated the ICA's summary disposition order. The court held that the LIRAB, the agency rejecting an appeal as untimely based on the Department’s “sent” date, must have direct evidence that the decision was sent on that date. In this case, the LIRAB did not have sufficient evidence. The court concluded that the Department did not offer adequate evidence that it mailed its decision on the date it claimed. Therefore, Dean may appeal to the LIRAB. The court remanded the case to the LIRAB to address the merits of Dean's appeal. View "Dean v. State" on Justia Law

In this case, a private citizen, Robert Teig, appealed a summary judgment granted to city officials in his lawsuit alleging violations of the Iowa Open Records Act. Teig had requested job applications and other documents related to the City of Cedar Rapids' hiring processes for a new city clerk and city attorney. The City refused many of Teig's requests, citing attorney-client privilege and the Act's confidentiality provisions as reasons for withholding several documents.The district court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, leading to Teig's appeal. He argued that job applications submitted to governmental bodies are not confidential under chapter 22, municipalities cannot claim attorney-client privilege in the context of an open records request, search and retrieval fees are not authorized by chapter 22, the defendants unreasonably delayed fulfilling certain requests, and the district court should have granted him leave to submit additional interrogatories in the ensuing litigation.The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's decision. The court held that documents subject to attorney-client privilege are protected from disclosure under chapter 22 and that chapter 22 authorizes municipalities or governmental bodies to charge search and retrieval fees. However, the court found that while job applications are generally protected from disclosure, that protection extends only to persons "outside of government." Therefore, the City was obligated to disclose those applications submitted by current employees of the City, although it properly withheld external applications. The court also found that the district court failed to address Teig’s claims of undue delay related to billing records. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Teig v. Chavez" on Justia Law

The case involves two petitioners, Daniel Dilly, Superintendent of the Rubenstein Juvenile Center (RJC), and Nancy Oldaker, Health Services Administrator at RJC, who were held in contempt of court by Judge Kurt Hall of the Circuit Court of Lewis County, West Virginia. The contempt charges arose from an incident involving a resident of RJC, identified as D.P., who suffered a broken jaw during a fight with other residents. The court had ordered that D.P. be taken off RJC grounds for an X-ray and that his mother be notified of his medical appointments. The court found that these orders were not adequately followed by the petitioners.The Circuit Court of Lewis County held a hearing to review D.P.'s placement and medical care, resulting in a "Medical Care Order" that directed RJC to schedule an appointment for D.P. with his oral surgeon and to allow D.P.'s mother to attend the appointment. The court also ordered RJC to provide a report concerning the incident that led to D.P.'s injury. When these orders were not fully complied with, the court held a "show cause" hearing and found both Superintendent Dilly and Ms. Oldaker in contempt of court, fining each of them $250.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found that procedural errors in the lower court's contempt proceedings deprived the court of jurisdiction to impose such sanctions. The court noted that the lower court failed to provide the petitioners with adequate notice that they were facing indirect criminal contempt proceedings and did not afford them jury trials before imposing the fines. The court concluded that the contempt orders were void and granted the petitioners' requested writs of prohibition, thereby preventing the lower court from enforcing the contempt orders. View "State ex rel. Dilly v. Hall" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between the City of Helena-West Helena and its Mayor, Christopher Franklin, and a resident, Greg Williams. The dispute arose when the Helena-West Helena City Council passed two ordinances, one increasing the conflict-of-interest limit for contracts signed with the City and the other raising the mayor's base pay. The then-mayor, Kevin Smith, vetoed both ordinances, citing the timing of the meeting as an attempt to circumvent the new city council. When Mayor Franklin took office, he attempted to rescind Smith's veto, stating that the ordinances should become law.The Phillips County Circuit Court had previously granted Williams's request for declaratory relief, ruling that the previous mayor's veto of the two city ordinances was proper. The court found that Smith had timely and properly executed a veto regarding the ordinances and that his veto was not overridden by a two-thirds vote of the City Council. As a result, the court declared all actions taken by the Council on December 30, including the passage of the two ordinances, null and void.The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the lower court's decision. The court disagreed with the appellants' argument that Smith's veto was ineffective due to his failure to comply with the statutory requirements. The court found that Smith had complied with the statute by timely vetoing the Council's actions and filing a written statement of his reasons for the veto prior to the next regular Council meeting. The court also disagreed with the appellants' interpretation of the statute, stating that the statute does not affirmatively require that the mayor's reasons for the veto be presented to the Council in order to effectuate the veto. View "CITY OF HELENA-WEST HELENA v. WILLIAMS" on Justia Law

The case involves the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (SCPRT) and Google LLC. The State of South Carolina, along with several other states, sued Google for violations of federal and state antitrust laws. Google subpoenaed SCPRT for discovery pertinent to its defense. SCPRT refused to comply, asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity and moved to quash the subpoena.The district court denied SCPRT's motion, holding that any Eleventh Amendment immunity that SCPRT may have otherwise been entitled to assert was waived when the State, through its attorney general, voluntarily joined the federal lawsuit against Google. SCPRT appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that by joining the lawsuit against Google, the State voluntarily invoked the jurisdiction of a federal court, thereby effecting a waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity as to all matters arising in that suit. And because SCPRT’s immunity derives solely from that of the State, South Carolina’s waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity equally effected a waiver of SCPRT’s immunity. The district court, therefore, properly denied SCPRT’s motion to quash. View "SC Dept of Parks, Recreation and Tourism v. Google LLC" on Justia Law

Michelle Oksman sued the City of Idaho Falls after slipping and falling on a wet surface in the lobby of the West Deist Aquatic Center, a facility owned and operated by the City. Oksman alleged negligence on the part of the City. The district court initially granted the City's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the City had no actual notice of a dangerous condition and did not fail to take reasonable action to remedy potential hazards. However, the court later withdrew its grant of summary judgment after Oksman identified the person who had allegedly stated that people frequently fell in the area where she had fallen. The case proceeded to a jury trial, during which the district court limited Oksman's testimony and declined to give a jury instruction Oksman requested regarding the reasonable value of necessary services. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the City, and the district court dismissed Oksman's complaint with prejudice. Oksman appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The Supreme Court found that the district court had erred in limiting Oksman's testimony about a statement made by the manager of the aquatic center, which was crucial to Oksman's case. The Supreme Court also provided guidance on issues likely to arise again on remand, including the use of depositions for impeachment and the use of leading questions. The Supreme Court further vacated the district court's award of costs to the City as the prevailing party. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal. View "Oksman v. City of Idaho Falls" on Justia Law