Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs in this case are trustees who own a property in Kīhei, Maui, which they use as a vacation home for personal use. In 2021, Maui County reclassified their property as a “short-term rental” based solely on zoning, not actual use, resulting in a higher property tax rate. The plaintiffs paid the assessed taxes but did not utilize the administrative appeals process available through the Maui County Board of Review. Instead, they filed a class action in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, seeking a refund and alleging that the County’s collection of the higher taxes was unconstitutional, violated due process, and resulted in unjust enrichment.The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit granted the County’s motion to dismiss, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes chapter 232 and Maui County Code chapter 3.48, the proper procedure for contesting real property tax assessments—including constitutional challenges—requires first appealing to the County Board of Review and, if necessary, then to the Tax Appeal Court. Because the plaintiffs bypassed these required steps and missed the statutory deadline to appeal, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the Tax Appeal Court has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals regarding real property tax assessments, including those raising constitutional issues, and found that the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred due to their failure to timely pursue the established administrative remedies. As a result, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Piezko v. County of Maui" on Justia Law

The case involves a Nevada-domiciled trust, managed by a Nevada family trust company, whose trustee petitioned the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada to seal confidential information and close all court proceedings under NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256. The district court sealed nearly all documents and concealed the existence of the case, citing concerns over revealing personal, financial, and business information, and later provided limited case information after media inquiries. Several media organizations, having reported on the matter—especially due to its connection to Rupert Murdoch and control over major media holdings—sought intervention to access court records and proceedings, arguing that the First Amendment presumption of public access applied.The probate commissioner recommended allowing media intervention but denying access, and the district court entered an order adopting this recommendation. The court interpreted the statutes as granting automatic and comprehensive confidentiality, finding that privacy and security concerns—heightened by the parties’ public profiles—constituted a compelling interest for sealing and closure. The district court also concluded it lacked discretion to consider redaction as an alternative and held that the statutes’ confidentiality provisions justified the broad closure, even after the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Falconi v. Eighth Judicial District Court recognized a First Amendment presumption of access in civil and family court proceedings.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the district court’s decision, holding that NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256 permit only provisional sealing and require judicial discretion. The statutes do not automatically justify blanket sealing or closure, nor do they displace the common law or constitutional presumption of openness. The court found that the district court failed to make specific, non-speculative factual findings to justify the sealing and closure and did not adequately consider less restrictive alternatives. The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the district court to vacate its sealing order and conduct the required analysis for each document and hearing transcript. View "New York Times Co. v. District Court" on Justia Law

Joseph Hehrer was detained in the Clinton County Jail in Michigan following charges related to operating a vehicle under the influence and a probation violation. While in custody, Hehrer began to exhibit symptoms of illness, including vomiting and abdominal pain. Over four days, jail medical staff evaluated him multiple times but failed to diagnose his underlying diabetes. Despite continued deterioration, corrections officers deferred to the medical professionals’ judgment and followed their instructions. Hehrer’s condition worsened until he was transported to a hospital, where he died from diabetic ketoacidosis.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan reviewed the estate’s claims, which included federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the county and its officers for deliberate indifference to medical needs, as well as a Monell claim for failure to train. The estate also brought state-law claims against the contracted medical provider and its staff. A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to the county and its officials on the federal claims, finding no deliberate indifference or Monell liability, and advised declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The district court adopted these recommendations and entered final judgment for the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the corrections officers acted reasonably by deferring to medical staff and did not act with deliberate indifference under the applicable Fourteenth Amendment standard. The court further held that the estate failed to show a pattern or obvious need for additional training to support Monell liability. Finally, the Sixth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims. View "Hehrer v. County of Clinton" on Justia Law

After Mikel Neil fled from a traffic stop initiated by two St. Louis County police officers, a high-speed chase ensued, reaching speeds over ninety miles per hour through a residential area. During the pursuit, one of the officers used a PIT maneuver, causing Neil’s vehicle to crash into a tree, resulting in his death. The officers left the scene without administering aid or calling for assistance and later falsely reported the crash as a single-car incident. Neil’s mother, Clara Cheeks, brought a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers had used excessive force.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed Cheeks’s excessive force claim, finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the complaint did not sufficiently allege a constitutional violation. Over a year after the dismissal, and after the deadline for amending pleadings had passed, Cheeks sought leave to amend her complaint to revive the excessive force claim. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the proposed amendments would be futile. Cheeks then appealed the dismissal and the denial of leave to amend, after voluntarily dismissing her remaining claim for failure to provide medical aid.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Eighth Circuit held that, under the circumstances described in the complaint, the use of a PIT maneuver during a dangerous high-speed chase did not constitute excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, following precedents such as Scott v. Harris. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend, because the proposed amendments would not cure the deficiencies in the excessive force claim. The court’s disposition was to affirm the dismissal and denial of leave to amend. View "Cheeks v. Belmar" on Justia Law

Michelle Evans attended a debate at the Texas Capitol in May 2023 regarding gender reassignment treatments for children. While at the Capitol, Evans encountered a transgender politician in the women’s restroom. A photo of this individual washing their hands was posted to Facebook by someone in Evans’s group, and Evans subsequently tweeted the same photo with a caption expressing her belief that the politician should not have used the women’s restroom. The tweet led to controversy and an investigation by the Department of Public Safety, prompted by Travis County District Attorney José Garza, to determine if Evans’s actions violated Texas Penal Code § 21.15(b), which prohibits transmitting images of individuals in bathrooms or changing rooms without consent and with intent to invade privacy.Evans sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, aiming to prevent Garza from investigating or prosecuting her for disseminating the photograph. She argued that the statute was unconstitutional both facially and as applied to her conduct, citing First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The district court denied her requests for injunctive relief, reasoning that the equities weighed against granting the injunction, and that the values underlying abstention doctrines informed its decision. The court found no ongoing state judicial proceeding that would trigger abstention and did not make explicit findings on the likelihood of success on the merits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that Evans had standing but agreed that she failed to meet her burden to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that the balance of harms justified injunctive relief. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the statute was not facially unconstitutional and that Evans had not shown it was unconstitutional as applied to her situation. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Evans v. Garza" on Justia Law

A man who was not a member of a grand jury petitioned the Superior Court in Anchorage, Alaska, seeking to present information to a grand jury about alleged deficiencies and patterns of conduct within the Office of Children’s Services. He did not request a criminal indictment, but instead asked that the grand jury investigate certain matters of public welfare and safety. The Superior Court held hearings to clarify what he sought, but before the process concluded, the Alaska Supreme Court amended Criminal Rule 6.1, establishing a procedure for private citizens to submit concerns to the grand jury through the Attorney General.Following this amendment, the Superior Court vacated further hearings and instructed the petitioner to submit his request to the Department of Law as required by Rule 6.1(c). The petitioner did so and also appealed the Superior Court’s dismissal, arguing that the Alaska Supreme Court lacked authority to enact Rule 6.1(c) and that it improperly limited the grand jury’s constitutional powers.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska considered the appeal. Using independent judgment for constitutional interpretation and reviewing the dismissal as a grant of summary judgment de novo, the Court held that the Alaska Constitution gives it broad rule-making authority over judicial procedure, including grand jury matters. The Court found that Rule 6.1(c) does not impermissibly suspend the grand jury’s investigatory power, nor does the Constitution guarantee individuals direct access to the grand jury. The Court also rejected claims that the rule violated statutory or common law rights and found no procedural defects in the rule’s promulgation. Accordingly, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of the man’s petition to follow a different process. View "Garber v. Superior Court, Third Judicial District" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two neighbors residing in the same apartment building in Washington, D.C. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had stolen food deliveries from her apartment door on two occasions and, on two other occasions, had knocked on her bedroom window early in the morning and made crude sexual propositions. The petitioner testified about her fear and referenced the respondent’s status as a registered sex offender. Video evidence of the food thefts was presented, and the respondent’s counsel argued that the alleged conduct did not meet the statutory requirements for stalking and that the sexual statements constituted protected speech under the First Amendment.The case was initially reviewed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The trial court found that the respondent had engaged in a course of conduct meeting the statutory definition of stalking, relying on both the food thefts and the window-knocking incidents, including the sexual propositions. The court granted the petitioner an anti-stalking order, reasoning that the combination of food theft and unwanted sexual advances constituted the type of targeting that the anti-stalking statute was intended to prevent.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the trial court erred by failing to consider whether the respondent’s speech was constitutionally protected and may not be punished as stalking, as required by Mashaud v. Boone, 295 A.3d 1139 (D.C. 2023). Because the trial court relied on the content of protected speech and did not conduct the necessary First Amendment analysis, the error was deemed harmful. The anti-stalking order was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Graham v. T.T." on Justia Law

John Kenney, a resident of Florida, sought to obtain a retail cannabis license in Rhode Island as a social equity applicant. He argued that, as a recipient of a social equity cannabis license in the District of Columbia and someone with nonviolent marijuana convictions in Maryland and Nevada, he would otherwise qualify under Rhode Island’s Cannabis Act. Kenney challenged two provisions of the Act: the requirement that all license applicants must be Rhode Island residents or entities controlled by Rhode Island residents, and the definition of “social equity applicant,” which, according to Kenney, only recognizes nonviolent marijuana offenses eligible for expungement under Rhode Island law.After Kenney filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On February 6, 2025, the district court dismissed the case on ripeness grounds, reasoning that the Cannabis Control Commission had not yet promulgated final rules for retail cannabis licenses, and thus the court could not adjudicate the claims. The case was dismissed without prejudice, and Kenney appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the appeal. Following the Commission’s issuance of final rules for retail cannabis licenses, effective May 1, 2025, the appellate court determined that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of ripeness. The First Circuit held that Kenney’s claims were not moot and that he had standing to pursue them. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal order and remanded the case for prompt consideration of the merits of Kenney’s constitutional challenges, instructing the district court to rule at least forty-five days before the Commission issues retail licenses. View "Kenney v. Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission" on Justia Law

A cannabis entrepreneur based in California sought to challenge specific provisions of Rhode Island’s Cannabis Act, which governs the licensing of retail cannabis businesses. The Act requires applicants for all retail cannabis business licenses to be Rhode Island residents or entities with a principal place of business in Rhode Island and majority ownership by Rhode Island residents. It also establishes criteria for “social equity applicants,” reserving certain licenses for individuals with past marijuana-related convictions eligible for expungement or for those who have resided in disproportionately impacted areas. The plaintiff, not a Rhode Island resident, intended to apply for a license but alleged that these requirements violated the dormant Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed the plaintiff’s action without prejudice, concluding that her claims were not ripe for judicial review. The court cited several cases but provided no substantive analysis, noting that the Commission had yet to promulgate final rules and regulations for licensing and declining to speculate on the timeline for their adoption. This order was issued just before the public comment period on the proposed regulations closed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing on ripeness grounds. The appellate court determined that the claims were ripe, not moot, and that the plaintiff had standing to bring the suit. The court found that the plaintiff faced imminent harm under the statutory requirements and that judicial intervention was warranted. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for prompt consideration of the plaintiff’s constitutional claims, instructing the lower court to issue its rulings before the planned issuance of retail cannabis licenses. View "Jensen v. Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission" on Justia Law

An individual went to a police station to report being assaulted, and officers responded to take his statement. While at the hospital, where the individual had been transported, officers observed that he was intoxicated and later placed him in custody for transport to a detoxification facility under Oregon’s civil detox statutes. The individual had a backpack with him. During an inventory of his property, an officer opened the closed, opaque backpack and discovered a butterfly knife, which led to a criminal history check and a subsequent arrest for possession of a restricted weapon.Initially, the Washington County Circuit Court denied a motion to suppress evidence from the backpack. On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld both the seizure and the inventory search of the backpack, reasoning that, under established case law, police could open closed, opaque containers likely to contain valuables if done pursuant to a lawful inventory policy. The Court of Appeals relied heavily on its prior decisions, concluding the inventory search was permissible under the relevant county ordinance and inventory policy.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case. It held that, under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, inventory searches of closed, opaque containers that do not announce their contents are not permitted when a person is taken into custody on a civil detox hold, even if executed under a valid, non-discretionary inventory policy. The court emphasized that in the civil detox context, compliance with an inventory policy does not alone render such a search reasonable; privacy interests and the non-criminal nature of the detention require a higher level of protection. The Supreme Court of Oregon reversed the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Wilcox" on Justia Law