Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Continental Resources, Inc., an oil and gas production company, leases minerals from both the North Dakota Board of University and School Lands (Land Board) and the United States. The dispute centers on the entitlement to royalties from minerals extracted from the bed of Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota, which depends on the location of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). If North Dakota law and the state survey govern the OHWM, the Land Board is entitled to a larger percentage of the royalties; if the federal survey controls, the United States is entitled to a larger percentage.The United States removed the interpleader action to federal court and moved to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota denied the motion, holding that under 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a)(5), the United States waived sovereign immunity because North Dakota law created a lien in favor of the United States upon Continental severing the minerals. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States for lands retained since North Dakota's admission to the Union, applying federal law and the Corps Survey. It granted summary judgment in favor of the Land Board for lands reacquired by the United States, applying North Dakota law and the Wenck survey.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss, agreeing that the United States had a lien on the disputed minerals under North Dakota law. The court also affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the Land Board, holding that North Dakota law governs the current location of the OHWM for lands reacquired by the United States. The court denied the United States' motion for judicial notice of additional documents. View "Continental Resources, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Sentry Dynamics, Inc. (Sentry) requested a list of all property owners' names and addresses in Ada County from the Ada County Assessor’s Office. Ada County denied the request, suspecting Sentry intended to sell the data for use as a mailing or telephone list, which is prohibited under Idaho Code section 74-120(1). Sentry filed a complaint in district court seeking access to the records. The district court ordered Ada County to release the records in an electronic format of its choosing. Ada County appealed, and Sentry cross-appealed, requesting the records in the shapefile format used by the County.The district court of the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho ruled that the information Sentry sought was a public record and constituted a "list of persons" under Idaho Code section 74-120(1). The court held that Sentry was entitled to the records because it agreed not to use them as a mailing list. However, the court allowed Ada County to choose the electronic format for providing the records. Ada County appealed, arguing that Sentry did not assure the data would not be used for mailing list purposes by third parties. Sentry cross-appealed, seeking the records in their original shapefile format.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and held that the records requested by Sentry constituted a "list of persons" and that Ada County could require Sentry to assure that the data would not be used for mailing purposes by its clients and customers. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that paragraphs 3, 4, and 6 of Ada County’s "Acknowledgment and Agreement" form went beyond the permissible inquiry under Idaho Code section 74-102(5)(b). However, the court reversed the district court's order requiring Ada County to provide the records in an electronic format, stating that the PRA does not mandate delivery in any specific format. The court concluded that Ada County was not required to produce the records because Sentry refused to certify that neither it nor its clients would use the records as a mailing list. View "Sentry Dynamics, Inc. v. Ada County" on Justia Law

Kenneth Michael Sikorsky purchased a property in Newburgh, New York, in 2006 but fell behind on his property taxes, leading to foreclosure by the City of Newburgh in 2012. Sikorsky and the City later agreed on a contract for Sikorsky to repurchase the property, but the sale fell through when Sikorsky failed to make the required payments. The City subsequently sold the property for $350,500, significantly more than the $92,786.24 Sikorsky owed in taxes, but did not return the surplus to Sikorsky.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Sikorsky's pro se complaint, which alleged a constitutional taking and violations of New York state laws. Sikorsky, now represented by counsel, appealed the dismissal, arguing that he had stated a valid claim under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and that he had a right to recover under new New York state laws enacted during the appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that Sikorsky had indeed stated a claim for a constitutional taking against the City of Newburgh and Jeremy Kaufman. The court found that the new New York laws did not provide Sikorsky with a remedy, as they only applied to properties sold on or after May 25, 2023, or to those with active proceedings under N.Y. CPLR § 7803(1) on the effective date of the act. Since Sikorsky's property was sold in June 2021 and he had not initiated an Article 78 proceeding, he lacked a local remedy.The Second Circuit vacated the District Court's dismissal of Sikorsky's constitutional taking claims against the City of Newburgh and Jeremy Kaufman and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Sikorsky v. City of Newburgh" on Justia Law

A builder, PDT Holdings, Inc. and Phillip Thompson Homes, Inc., sought to construct a duplex townhome in Dallas. They met with city officials multiple times to verify applicable restrictions and were informed of a 36-foot maximum building height limit. The builder submitted a construction plan for a 36-foot-high duplex, which the city approved. During construction, the city issued a stop-work order due to a parapet wall exceeding the height limit, which the builder corrected. Later, the city issued another stop-work order, citing a violation of the residential-proximity-slope (RPS) ordinance, which limited the height to 26 feet. Despite this, the city lifted the stop-work order, allowing the builder to complete the duplex.The builder applied for a variance from the Board of Adjustment (BOA) but was denied. They then sued the city, seeking to estop it from enforcing the RPS ordinance. The trial court ruled in favor of the builder, finding that the city was estopped from enforcing the ordinance. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the city’s mistake in issuing the permit did not warrant estoppel.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the trial court's judgment was supported by legally sufficient evidence. The court found that city officials had affirmatively misled the builder about the height limit and that the builder had relied on these misrepresentations to their detriment. The court also determined that this was an exceptional case where estoppel was necessary to prevent manifest injustice and that estopping the city would not interfere with its governmental functions. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's judgment, estopping the city from enforcing the RPS ordinance against the builder. View "PDT HOLDINGS, INC. v. CITY OF DALLAS" on Justia Law

George and Maria Dernis borrowed money from Premier Bank, which was involved in fraudulent lending practices. The loans were secured by mortgages on their personal real estate. After Premier Bank collapsed, the FDIC was appointed as receiver and sold some of the bank's loans, including the Dernises' loans, to Amos Financial in 2014. The Dernises claimed that the FDIC was aware of the fraudulent nature of the loans and failed to take remedial action. They filed a lawsuit against the FDIC, which was dismissed by the district court. They then filed an amended complaint against the United States under the FTCA, alleging various torts based on the FDIC's conduct.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the amended complaint, determining that most of the claims were not timely exhausted under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). The court also found that the sole timely claim was barred by the FTCA’s intentional torts exception under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). The court dismissed the action with prejudice and entered final judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the Dernises failed to timely exhaust their administrative remedies for most of their claims. The court also held that the only timely claim was barred by the FTCA’s intentional torts exception, as it involved misrepresentation, deceit, and interference with contract rights. The court rejected the Dernises' argument that the FDIC’s "sue-and-be-sued" clause provided a broader waiver of sovereign immunity, noting that the United States was the sole defendant and the FTCA provided the exclusive remedy for tort claims against the United States. View "Dernis v United States" on Justia Law

Lathfield Investments, LLC, Lathfield Holdings, LLC, and Lathfield Partners, LLC (collectively, "Lathfield") own three commercial buildings in Lathrup Village, Michigan, rented to various commercial tenants. The City of Lathrup Village and its Downtown Development Authority (collectively, the "City") require landlords to obtain a rental license and list each tenant's name and principal business. Lathfield applied for a landlord rental license in July 2020 but did not list the required tenant information, leading to the denial of their application and their tenants' business license applications. Lathfield sued the City, alleging unlawful compulsion to apply for unnecessary licenses and make unnecessary property improvements, bringing eleven claims, nine against the City.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment to the City on all nine claims. Lathfield appealed, arguing that the City improperly required site plan approval, violated due process and equal protection rights, and engaged in inverse condemnation, among other claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Lathfield's request for declaratory relief regarding site plan approval was moot since the site plan process was already completed. The court also found that Lathfield was required to obtain a general business license under the City Code and that the City Code's tenant registration requirement applied to Lathfield. The court rejected Lathfield's due process claims, noting that the City’s adoption of the Michigan Building Code was a legislative act not subject to procedural due process requirements. The court also dismissed Lathfield's equal protection claim due to a lack of evidence of differential treatment and found no basis for the Contracts Clause claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lastly, the court concluded that Lathfield failed to establish an inverse condemnation claim or a civil conspiracy. View "Lathfield Investments, LLC v. City of Lathrup Village, Mich." on Justia Law

Gianni and Jennifer Pignetti owned two noncontiguous parcels of land in Philadelphia, used for storing vehicles and equipment for Mr. Pignetti's electrical business. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) condemned part of one parcel and all of the other for an Interstate 95 improvement project. The Pignettis sought just compensation, arguing the parcels should be valued together as one under the Eminent Domain Code, which allows for such valuation if noncontiguous tracts in substantially identical ownership are used together for a unified purpose.The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County agreed with the Pignettis, finding that the parcels were used together for a unified purpose and had substantially identical ownership. PennDOT appealed, and the Commonwealth Court reversed, ruling that the Pignettis did not prove the parcels were used together for a unified purpose. The Commonwealth Court applied a stricter standard from the case Morris v. Commonwealth, requiring that the parcels be so inseparably connected that the loss of one would necessarily and permanently injure the other.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the plain language of Section 705 of the Eminent Domain Code does not require the stricter standard from Morris. Instead, it requires only that the parcels be used together for a unified purpose. The Court found that the Pignettis' use of the parcels for storing business equipment and vehicles met this requirement. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address whether the parcels had substantially identical ownership, an issue not resolved by the Commonwealth Court. View "Pignetti v. PennDOT" on Justia Law

The State of Wyoming, Board of Land Commissioners (State Board), granted Temporary Use Permits (TUPs) to permittees for the use of state land in Teton County. The Teton County Board of County Commissioners (County Board) issued abatement notices to the permittees, asserting violations of county land use regulations. The State Board sought a declaration that it and its permittees were not subject to these regulations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State Board, and the County Board appealed.The district court found that the State Board and its permittees were not subject to Teton County's land use and development regulations. The County Board argued that Wyoming statutes required compliance with local zoning laws for state lands under long-term leases and TUPs. The State Board countered that sovereign immunity protected it from such regulations and that the statutes did not apply to TUPs.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the State Board and its permittees operating under a TUP are not subject to county land use and development regulations. The court reasoned that while Wyoming statutes require compliance with local zoning laws for long-term leases of state lands, they do not impose the same requirement for TUPs. The court emphasized that the legislature's omission of TUPs from the statutory requirement for compliance with local zoning laws was intentional. Therefore, the County Board lacked the authority to enforce its land use regulations against the State Board and its permittees operating under a TUP. View "Teton County Board of County Commissioners v. State" on Justia Law

The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) awarded a contract to OC 405 Partners Joint Venture (OC 405) for improvements to Interstate 405. OC 405 then awarded subcontracting work to Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB). However, the parties disagreed on the scope of the subcontract work and did not execute a written subcontract. OC 405 subsequently contracted with another subcontractor, leading GSB to file a lawsuit seeking benefit of the bargain damages, claiming OC 405 did not comply with Public Contract Code section 4107’s substitution procedures.The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of OC 405 and other defendants, holding that GSB was not entitled to the protections of section 4107 because it did not meet the requirements of section 4100 et seq. Specifically, GSB was not a "listed subcontractor" in the original bid, and its proposed work did not exceed one-half of 1 percent of the prime contractor’s total bid, a threshold requirement under section 4104.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding that section 4107’s substitution procedures did not apply to OC 405’s substitution of GSB. The court emphasized that the protections of section 4100 et seq. only apply to subcontractors whose proposed work exceeds the one-half of 1 percent threshold of the prime contractor’s total bid. Since GSB’s bid did not meet this threshold, it was not entitled to the protections under section 4107. The court also noted that the contractual provisions in the prime contract did not alter this statutory requirement. Thus, the judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v. Astaldi Construction" on Justia Law

A landlord argued that a case brought by the Los Angeles City Attorney to enforce California's Public Nuisance Law (PNL) violated Government Code section 53165.1, which bars local governments from penalizing tenants or landlords solely due to contact with law enforcement. The case involved a 116-unit apartment complex in North Hollywood, where the People alleged a gang-related public nuisance. The complaint sought abatement of the nuisance, a permanent injunction, and civil penalties.The Los Angeles County Superior Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the defendants to implement several security measures, including proper lighting, video monitoring, and private security. The court also ordered criminal background checks on tenants. Defendants appealed, and a different panel of the Court of Appeal affirmed the preliminary injunction but directed the trial court to consider modifying it in light of section 53165.1. On remand, the trial court modified the injunction to remove the background check requirements but confirmed the validity of the rest of the injunction.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and held that enforcing the PNL is not prohibited by section 53165.1 because the PNL is a state law, not a local ordinance, rule, policy, program, or regulation. The court also determined that the action brought by the city attorney on behalf of the People of the State of California is not an action by a "local government" within the meaning of section 53165.1. Additionally, the court found that the preliminary injunction did not penalize tenants or landlords solely due to contact with law enforcement. The order was affirmed. View "People ex rel. Soto v. Group IX BP Properties" on Justia Law