Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Landowners Merlin and Lori Zowada filed a petition with the Board of County Commissioners to establish a private road to access their landlocked tract of property through property owned by Mullinax Concrete Service Company. The Board considered six alternative routes for the private road. After the Board ruled on the petition, the Supreme Court determined that the case should be remanded to the commissioners to compare the relative merits of only two alternative routes, Route 1 and Route 6, and to determine whether the greater cost of Route 6 was justified. After further proceedings, the Board established the road along Route 6. The Zowadas sought review of that decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board’s findings of fact and conclusion of law, holding that the Board’s decision to establish the private road along Route 6 was supported by substantial evidence.View "Zowada v. Mullinax Concrete Serv. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians owned and operated a resort and casino on its rancheria lands in Madera County. In 2005, another tribe, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, submitted a request to the United States Department of the Interior asking the department to acquire approximately 305 acres of land in Madera County adjacent to State Route 99 so the North Fork Tribe could develop its own resort and casino there. The land on which the North Fork Tribe wanted to build was approximately 40 miles away from the North Fork Tribe's rancheria lands and approximately 30 miles away from the Picayune Tribe's casino. Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, casino gaming on lands acquired for a tribe by the Secretary of the Interior after October 17, 1988, was generally prohibited, subject to certain exceptions. One of those exceptions was if "the Secretary, after consultation with the Indian tribe and appropriate State and local officials, including officials of other nearby Indian tribes, determines that a gaming establishment on newly acquired lands would be in the best interest of the Indian tribe and its members, and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community, but only if the Governor of the State in which the gaming activity is to be conducted concurs in the Secretary's determination." The United States Department of the Interior conducted an environmental review of the project proposed by the North Fork Tribe under federal law and issued a final environmental impact statement in 2009. In September 2011, the Secretary of the Interior's delegate notified the Governor of California that the delegate had made the "'two-part determination'" that a gaming establishment on the newly acquired lands would be in the best interest of the North Fork Tribe and its members and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community, and asked Governor Brown to concur in that determination. Despite requests by the Picayune Tribe and others that he prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) before acting, Governor Brown issued his concurrence in the two-part determination without preparing or considering the preparation of an EIR. The following day, the Governor executed a tribal-state gaming compact with the North Fork Tribe. The Picayune Tribe filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive relief against the Governor and others, asserting that the Governor's concurrence in the two-part determination constituted an "'approval'" of a "'project'" under state law that "must be the subject of the CEQA environmental review process." All of the defendants and the real party in interest demurred. Among other things, the Governor and the real party in interest argued that as a matter of law the Governor is not a "public agency" for CEQA purposes and therefore his concurrence in the two-part determination was not subject to CEQA. The trial court agreed. Accordingly, the court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court was correct in concluding the Governor was not a public agency for CEQA purposes, and therefore did not err in sustaining the demurrers. View "Picayune Rancheria v. Brown" on Justia Law

Petitioner, the owner and president of a Montana corporation, stopped paying himself a salary but continued working. Petitioner applied for and received unemployment benefits but reported to the State of Montana Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) that he worked zero hours per week. When DLI discovered that Petitioner worked fifty hours a week, DLI determined that Petitioner had wrongfully received benefits. DLI ordered Petitioner to repay the overpaid benefits and imposed an administrative penalty. The district court reversed in part, concluding that when Petitioner drew no salary he did not need to report the hours he worked and was eligible to receive benefits. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a corporate officer working full-time without pay for his corporation is engaged in employment under Montana’s Unemployment Insurance Law and is required to report his hours of work when seeking unemployment benefits; and (2) DLI correctly imposed a penalty on Petitioner for misrepresenting the amount of hours he worked.View "Sayler v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., Ins. Div." on Justia Law

For the tax year 2008, Appellant, a property owner and taxpayer, filed four valuation complaints challenging the Summit County Fiscal Officer’s valuation of seven parcels. The Summit County Board of Revision (BOR) rejected Appellant’s requests for decreased valuations for lack of probative evidence. On appeal, Appellant urged the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) to adopt to certain properties the contractual allocation of the purchase price of a large industrial-warehouse business Appellant sold in 2010. The BTA found that the values determined by the fiscal officer and the BOR should be retained, concluding that the 2010 sale included some but not all of the parcels at issue as well as parcels that were not at issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully in concluding that the allocation evidence did not suffice to establish the value of the properties; and (2) Appellant failed to discharge its burden to show the propriety of an allocated sale price.View "RNG Props., Ltd. v. Summit County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Enrique Herrera was working for Gilligan’s LLC under the supervision of Robert Phillipps when he was injured. Herrera was an alien who was not authorized to work in the United States at the time of the injury. Herrera filed a lawsuit against Gilligan’s and Phillips, alleging that Defendants were negligent and that, if that Worker’s Compensation Act applied, Phillipps’ conduct was intentional and he was therefore liable as a co-employee. The district court granted summary judgment for Gilligan’s and Phillipps, concluding primarily that there was no genuine dispute as to the material fact that Defendants reasonably believed Herrera was authorized to work in the United States, and therefore, Defendants were immune from suit pursuant to the Act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Gilligan’s had a reasonable belief that Herrera was authorized to work in the United States and whether Phillipps acted in intentional disregard of a dangerous condition when he instructed Herrera to perform his work. Remanded.View "Herrera v. Phillipps" on Justia Law

Sandy Womack was convicted and sentenced to a term of confinement with the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). While Womack was housed at the Whiteville Correctional Facility in Hardman County, which was owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CAA), a private entity, Womack filed suit against CAA in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, alleging that CAA had negligently failed to address his medical needs. CAA moved to dismiss the complaint or to transfer it to Hardeman County in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. 41-21-803, asserting that section 41-21-803 “effectively localized actions brought by prisoners.” The Davidson County court granted the motion and transferred the case to Hardeman County. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 41-21-803 did not apply to Womack’s lawsuit because his cause of action accrued while he was housed in the privately operated Whiteville Correctional Facility rather than in a facility operated by the TDOC within the meaning of the statute.View "Womack v. Corr. Corp. of Am." on Justia Law

The Georgia Department of Corrections (GDOC) entered into a construction contract with Lewis Walker Roofing (Walker Roofing) to re-roof several buildings at Valdosta State Prison. The Contract contained two “no assignment” clauses, and as a prerequisite to contracting with GDOC, Walker Roofing was required to obtain payment and performance bonds. It obtained such payment and performance bonds from Developers Surety and Indemnity Company. Walker Roofing did not complete its work within the time frame required by the Contract, and GDOC declared Walker Roofing in default. Developers Surety did not notify GDOC within 25 days of receipt of GDOC's notice of default regarding whether it would remedy the default or perform the contract. However, approximately three months after the declaration of default, Developers Surety gave GDOC the option of entering into a contract with another company for the completion of the work. GDOC then contracted with that company to finish the project. Under the payment and performance bonds and prior to Walker Roofing's default, Developers Surety had provided financial assistance to Walker Roofing. Developers Surety filed suit against GDOC for breach of contract and for a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation under the payment and performance bond it issued to Walker Roofing on behalf of GDOC. GDOC filed a counterclaim for breach of contract. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court determined that Developers Surety's claims were not barred by sovereign immunity and that GDOC had breached the construction contract as a matter of law. It concluded that GDOC waived its sovereign immunity by entering into the contract with Walker Roofing, and that the doctrine of equitable subrogation gave Developers Surety the ability to file suit against GDOC once it incurred liability and paid the obligations of its principal under the bond. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment to Developers Surety and denied it to GDOC; in the same order, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Developers Surety in the amount equal to the "financial assistance" Developers Surety provided to Walker Roofing. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals to consider whether the State’s sovereign immunity was waived for the claim Developers Surety made on its contract with the State. The Supreme Court found that immunity was indeed waived in this instance, and accordingly, it affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "Georgia Dept. of Corrections v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co." on Justia Law

Appellee Yvonne Butler was a principal at a DeKalb County elementary school. Appellant DeKalb County School District notified appellee it would be terminating her employment for: (1) incompetency; (2) insubordination; (3) wilful neglect of duties; and (4)for other good and sufficient cause. Appellee was placed on suspension while the charges were pending. A hearing was scheduled pursuant to the Fair Dismissal Act (FDA), but the parties agreed to a continuance. The record revealed the hearing never took place. Appellant offered appellee, in lieu of termination, a contract for a classroom teaching position for the 2011- 2012 school year and required that she sign and return the contract before May 19, 2011, if she chose to accept the offer. On May 31, 2011, appellee responded to the May 11 letter by asserting that she had a right to an FDA hearing. In her May 31 response, appellee never indicated she would be accepting the offered position of classroom teacher. On June 30, 2011, upon hiring new counsel, appellee returned the signed teaching contract "under protest." In July, appellant issued appellee a separation notice indicating appellee’s employment had ended as of June 30, 2011. The following March, appellee filed this mandamus action, requesting an FDA hearing, a name-clearing hearing, and damages for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in regard to the proffered 2011-2012 teaching contract. Both parties moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted and denied in part both parties’ motions: the decision effectively granted appellee’s petition for a writ of mandamus and held that appellee was entitled to an FDA hearing because she was a tenured employee and had been demoted from an administrator to a teacher. In addition, the trial court held that the request for a separate name-clearing hearing was moot as appellee could clear her name at the FDA hearing. Finally, the trial court denied appellee’s claim of damages for breach because it found that appellee had not timely accepted the contract to be a classroom teacher for the 2011-2012 school year. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that since appellee had earned tenure as a teacher, at the time of her suspension from the position as principal in 2010, the only right she had under the FDA was continued employment as a teacher. Therefore, the School District complied with the FDA when it offered appellee a teaching position for the 2011-2012 school year rather than insisting upon her termination. At that point, the FDA did not require any additional action by appellant. Thus, it was error for the trial court to conclude that appellant was required to hold a demotion hearing pursuant to the FDA in addition to offering appellee continued employment as a teacher. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court in all other respects. View "Dekalb County Sch. Dist. v. Butler" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from complaints filed by appellants Advanced Disposal Services Middle Georgia, LLC and Lowndes County, seeking injunctions prohibiting appellee Deep South Sanitation, LLC from providing solid waste collection and disposal services in the unincorporated areas of Lowndes County in violation of a newly enacted Lowndes County ordinance. The trial court denied appellants' requests for injunctive relief, and they appealed. The trial court determined that injunctive relief could not be granted in favor of appellants because enforcement of the Ordinance would violate Deep South's due process rights by interfering with its right to conduct business in the same manner as before enactment of the Ordinance. Because Deep South's substantive due process defense involved neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right, the Supreme Court applied a rational relationship test to determine whether enforcement of the Ordinance against Deep South would violate due process. Applying this test, the Court concluded the trial court erred by holding that enforcement of the Ordinance against Deep South would violate its due process rights. Furthermore, the Court found the trial court erred that the County's enforcement of the Ordinance through an injunction would have violated Deep South's substantive due process rights. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Advanced Disposal Services Middle Georgia, LLC v. Deep South Sanitation, LLC" on Justia Law

Daniel Berman appealed a judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate against the Regents of the University of California. He wanted to overturn a two-quarter suspension from the University of California San Diego (UCSD), which was imposed against him for hitting another student in the head with sufficient force to knock the other student to the ground and to cause that other student to lose consciousness, sustain a concussion and require medical attention. Berman did not challenge the factual finding he violated UCSD's Student Conduct Code, rather, he argued the Code did not authorize either the student conduct officer responsible for his case (who is also a Dean of Student Affairs) or the Council of Deans of Student Affairs to impose suspension as a sanction when the student conduct review board did not recommend suspension. The Court of Appeal reviewed the case, disagreed with Berman's arguments and affirmed the suspension.View "Berman v. Regents of UCSD" on Justia Law