Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, family members of union leaders killed in Colombia by members of the Colombian National Army's 18th Brigade, filed suit against Occidental, alleging several causes of action, including three under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350, contending that Occidental should be liable for the 18th Brigade's war crimes, crimes against humanity, and assorted torts arising out of the murder of the union leaders. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) because it raised nonjusticiable political questions. The court affirmed, concluding that the facts of this case cannot be framed in such a way that severs the tie between the United States' and Occidental's funding of the CNA and the 18th Brigade. Plaintiffs' allegations are manifestly irreconcilable with the State Department's human rights certifications to Congress and the court remains bound by the Supreme Court's holding in Oetjen v. Cent. Leather Co. and Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc.View "Saldana v. Occidental Petroleum" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the civil suspension of his driver's license and his conditional guilty plea to driving under the influence (DUI). He argued that the police lacked reasonable grounds to stop him, and thus, the court should have granted his motion to suppress and dismiss. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed.View "Vermont v. Hinton" on Justia Law

ln consolidated cases, petitioners brought an untimely challenge to San Juan County's issuance of a garage-addition building permit. Petitioners did not receive notice of the permit application and grant until the administrative appeals period had expired. Thus, petitioners claim that the Washington Supreme Court's interpretation of the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW, required them to appeal a decision without actual or constructive notice of it. Acknowledging a strong public policy supporting administrative deadlines, the Supreme Court found: (1) petitioners were required to exhaust available administrative remedies to obtain a land use decision; (2) there were no equitable exceptions to the exhaustion requirement; (3) the plain language of LUPA says as much; and (4) there was no due process violation because petitioner had no constitutionally protected property interest in the denial of his neighbor's land-use permit.View "Durland v. San Juan County" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court's review centered on whether the city of Lakewood's explanation for redacting driver's license numbers from records produced for David Koenig was inadequate and, if so, whether Koenig was entitled to attorney fees. In October 2007, Koenig requested three sets of records from the city :(1) records about the arrest and prosecution of a Lakewood police detective in January 2005 for patronizing a prostitute; (2) records about a November 2006 auto accident in the city of Fife, where a Fife police officer struck a pedestrian with his patrol car and the Lakewood Police Department assisted with the investigation; and (3) records about Tacoma police officer Michael Justice's 1998 arrest and subsequent prosecution on fourth degree assault charges. In November 2007, the city advised Koenig by letter that responsive records were available for review and pickup. The city redacted, among other things, driver's license numbers from various types of documents it produced. The city justified the redaction of driver's license numbers by citation to certain statutes. Koenig questioned the city's reliance on the statutes it cited, asking the city to specify which exemption it claimed under RCW 42.56.240 and to clarify whether the it was also claiming driver's license numbers were exempt under the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (FDPPA). The city supplemented its earlier citations to the pertinent statutes. Thereafter, the city warned Koenig that it was "prepared to prosecute a declaratory judgment action decreeing that it fully complied with" Koenig's requests. Koenig filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing the city had not met its burden. Furthermore, he argued he was entitled to attorney fees for the violation of the statute's brief explanation requirement, regardless of whether the numbers were ruled exempt. The Supreme Court held that the city's response was inadequate and Koenig was entitled to fees.View "City of Lakewood v. Koenig" on Justia Law

AGI filed suit against the City, raising claims arising out of an agreement between the City and Profile Aviation. The district court denied the City's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, holding that, under North Carolina law, governmental immunity from equitable claims is waived when a county or municipality acts in a proprietary, rather than governmental, capacity. Because (1) North Carolina precedent suggests that the Supreme Court of North Carolina would rule that immunity from equitable claims may be waived pursuant to the proprietary function theory and (2) the rationale behind the theory, as articulated by both the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of North Carolina, is consistent with the waiver of immunity for equitable claims, the court held that the district court did not err in its application of North Carolina state law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.View "AGI Assoc. v. City of Hickory, NC" on Justia Law

After prevailing in a condemnation action, petitioners-landowners moved for an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to section 28-2-510(B)(1) of the Eminent Domain Procedure Act. Contrary to petitioners' view, the circuit court determined attorneys' fees should be awarded based on an hourly rate via a lodestar calculation rather than the contingency fee agreement between Petitioners and their attorney. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court interpreted section 28-2-510 and concluded the General Assembly intended for attorneys' fees to be awarded based on a constellation of factors. Specifically, section 28-2-510(B)(1) mandated that in order for a prevailing landowner to recover reasonable attorneys' fees he or she must submit an application for fees "necessarily incurred." Therefore, by implication, the General Assembly precluded a landowner from recovering attorneys' fees based solely on a contingency fee agreement without regards for section 28-2-510. The Court explained that even though the contingency fee agreement is not the sole element in the calculation, it is still a significant component as it may be used to explain the basis for the fee charged by the landowner's counsel. "Our decision should not be construed as somehow condemning or eliminating an attorney's use of a contingency fee agreement. To the contrary, we recognize that the use of these agreements is a legitimate and well-established practice for attorneys throughout our state. This practice may still be pursued. Yet, it is with the caveat that the terms of the agreement are not controlling. Rather, they constitute one factor in a constellation of factors for the court's consideration in determining an award of reasonable litigation expenses to a prevailing landowner under section 28-2-510(B)(1). The court may, in fact, conclude that the contingency fee agreement yields a reasonable fee. However, the court is not bound by the terms of the agreement. " For this case, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals misapplied case law precedent. Furthermore, the Court concluded the circuit court failed to conduct the correct statutory analysis, and remanded this matter to the circuit court. Petitioners' counsel was instructed to submit an itemized statement in compliance with section 28-2-510(B)(1) as counsel's original affidavit failed to identify the "fee charged" and the actual number of hours expended.View "South Carolina Dept. of Trans. v. Revels" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether the Special District Act (SDA) gave special districts the power to assign to a private party the right to receive development fees. Cherry Creek South Metropolitan District 1 assigned to a predecessor-in-interest of petitioner SDI, Inc. the right to receive fees the District assessed on developers within its boundaries to finance development of municipal infrastructure. The District increased the fees by about four percent each of the years prior to the assignment. SDI increased the fees it collected, but at a rate of eight percent per year. SDI sued Pivotal Parker Commercial, LLC to recover unpaid development fees, and requested a declaratory judgment that it could raise annual fees in the future. The trial court held that SDI was entitled to receive the fees as increased annually. Pivotal argued on appeal that the fee increase was an improper delegation of legislative authority. The appellate court reversed the trial court, which found that the District had no right to assign the fees. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, finding that the appellate court's reasoning was contrary to the SDA itself. As such, the Supreme Court held that the District's assignment of the right to collect fees was a lawful exercise of its statutory authority. The case was remanded to the appellate court for consideration of other issues Pivotal raised on appeal.View "SDI, Inc. v. Pivotal Parker, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, South Carolina public employees, filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the South Carolina State Retirement System Preservation and Investment Reform Act, 2005 S.C. Acts 1697. The Act amended South Carolina's retirement laws by requiring public employees who retire and then return to work to make, beginning on July 1, 2005, the same contributions to state-created pension plans as pre-retirement employees but without receiving further pension benefits. The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that their claims under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment are exempt from the protection of the Eleventh Amendment. The court agreed with the district court that the pension plans and the Trust are arms of the State and have sovereign immunity; the state officials sued in their official capacities for repayment of pension-plan contributions have sovereign immunity; and the state officials sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief have sovereign immunity because their duties bear no relation to the collection of the public employees' contributions to the pension plans, excluding application of Ex parte Young. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.View "Hutto v. SC Retirement System" on Justia Law

In the 2014 legislative session, the New Mexico Legislature passed the General Appropriations Act of 2014, which included a pair of salary increases for judges and justices of the state judiciary. The first increase was a 5% raise for the judicial branch (including judges). The raise was not separately identified in the language of section 4(B) of the Act. The second increase, separately funded in Section 8(A) was the same 3% raise authorized for all eligible state employees, including judges. Calling out what she referred to as a "dramatic 8% raise," Governor Martinez used her partial veto authority to strike the 3% raise for judges, leaving intact the language set forth in section 4(B). Thereafter, a group of judges, judicial associations and legislators (collectively, petitioners), petitioned the New Mexico Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to declare the Governor's veto of the 3% raise as unconstitutional. Petitioners sought to have the vetoed language reinstated, thereby asking for the full 8% raise. After a full briefing and hearing the arguments of the parties, the Supreme Court denied the petition in part, holding that the Governor's veto was effective with respect to the section 8(A) 3% raise. The Court also granted in part, holding that the 5% raise separately funded in section 4(B) was never vetoed and therefore was still intact. The Court then issued the writ to order the Secretary of the Department of Finance and Administration to implement the 5% raise.View "New Mexico ex rel. Cisneros v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the State, challenging the constitutionality of Fla. Stat. 414.0652, which requires suspicionless drug testing of all applicants seeking Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The court granted a preliminary injunction barring the application of the statute against plaintiff and the State stopped the drug-testing program. Then the district court granted final summary judgment to plaintiff, declaring the statute unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The court concluded that the State failed to meet its burden of establishing a substantial special need to drug test all TANF applicants without any suspicion; even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the State has not demonstrated a more prevalent, unique, or different drug problem among TANF applicants than in the general population; the ordinary government interests claimed in this case are nothing like the narrow category of special needs that justify blanket drug testing of railroad workers, certain federal Customs employees involved in drug interdiction or who carry firearms, or involve surpassing safety interests; and the State cannot circumvent constitutional concerns by requiring that applicants consent to a drug test to receive TANF payments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.View "Lebron v. Secretary of the FL Dept. of Children and Families" on Justia Law