Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A dispute arose between the Alabama-West Florida Conference ("the Conference") of the United Methodist Church, Inc. ("the UMC"), and 44 Methodist churches in the Conference ("the churches"). Amid disagreements within the UMC over issues of human sexuality, the churches sought to leave the UMC with their properties under a provision of the Book of Discipline, the governing law of the UMC. After the Conference denied the churches the ability to vote to disaffiliate under that provision, the churches asked the Montgomery Circuit Court to order the Conference to grant them that vote. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.The Montgomery Circuit Court held an emergency hearing and heard evidence. The next day, the court dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because, according to the court, the relief that the churches requested was "ecclesiastical in nature and would require Court interference in matters of church autonomy," which would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The churches appealed that judgment.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The churches argued that the trial court erred in dismissing their suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because, they said, the case presents only "civil and property issues." However, the Supreme Court of Alabama held that the churches' central claims turn entirely on the interpretation of the provision of the Book of Discipline and whether their efforts to leave the UMC were consistent with that church law. Under existing First Amendment law and the court's precedent, that interpretive issue constitutes an ecclesiastical question that courts do not have jurisdiction to decide. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Aldersgate United Methodist Church of Montgomery v. Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a case involving the State of Texas, Ken Paxton in his official capacity as Attorney General of Texas, the Texas Medical Board, and Stephen Brint Carlton in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board (collectively, the State) against a group of women and physicians. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Texas's abortion laws, specifically the Human Life Protection Act, which generally prohibits performing an abortion except when a pregnant woman has a life-threatening physical condition that poses a risk of death or serious physical impairment unless an abortion is performed.The case reached the Supreme Court of Texas as a direct appeal from a temporary injunction issued by the 353rd District Court, Travis County, Texas, which halted the enforcement of Texas's abortion laws in various circumstances. The State contested the injunction, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the State had sovereign immunity, and the current Texas law permitting life-saving abortion was not more limiting than the Texas Constitution permits.The Supreme Court of Texas held that one of the plaintiffs, Dr. Damla Karsan, had standing to challenge the Attorney General’s enforcement of the Human Life Protection Act against her. The court also concluded that the Declaratory Judgments Act waives the State’s immunity for a claim that a statute violates the state constitution. The court further clarified that under the Human Life Protection Act, a woman with a life-threatening physical condition and her physician have the legal authority to proceed with an abortion to save the woman’s life or major bodily function, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment and with the woman’s informed consent. The court concluded that Dr. Karsan had not demonstrated that the part of the Human Life Protection Act that permits life-saving abortion is narrower than the Texas Constitution allows. As a result, the court vacated the lower court's injunction order. View "State v. Zurawski" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Justin Keener, who operated under the name JMJ Financial. Keener's business model involved purchasing convertible notes from microcap issuers, converting those notes into common stock, and selling that stock in the public market at a profit. This practice, known as "toxic" or "death spiral" financing, can harm microcap companies and existing investors by causing the stock price to drop significantly. Keener made over $7.7 million in profits from this practice. However, he never registered as a dealer with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).The SEC filed a civil enforcement action against Keener, alleging that he operated as an unregistered dealer in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment for the SEC, enjoining Keener from future securities transactions as an unregistered dealer and ordering him to disgorge the profits from his convertible-note business.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Keener appealed the district court's decision. He argued that he did not violate the Securities Exchange Act because he never effectuated securities orders for customers. He also claimed that the SEC violated his rights to due process and equal protection.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. It held that Keener operated as an unregistered dealer in violation of the Securities Exchange Act. The court rejected Keener's argument that he could not have been a dealer because he never effectuated securities orders for customers. It also dismissed Keener's claims that the SEC violated his rights to due process and equal protection. The court upheld the district court's imposition of a permanent injunction and its order for Keener to disgorge his profits. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Keener" on Justia Law

A group of Arkansas landowners sued Lawrence County, alleging that a bridge constructed by the county had caused their farms to flood, constituting an unlawful taking of their properties without just compensation, in violation of the U.S. and Arkansas Constitutions. The landowners claimed that the bridge acted as a dam, forcing excessive water into the Cache River, which then spilled onto their farms. They presented expert testimony to support their claims and sought damages based on the fair rental value of their properties during the period of the alleged taking.The district court upheld a jury award of nearly $350,000 to the landowners but rejected their request for an order to tear down the bridge. The county appealed the damages award, arguing that the landowners had failed to offer sufficient evidence of damages since they did not calculate the value of crops actually lost. The landowners cross-appealed the denial of their request for injunctive relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on the damages award, holding that the evidence permitted the jury to make a fair and reasonable approximation of damages. The court found that the landowners were not obliged to prove damages by providing evidence of the amount of crops they expected to grow versus the amount of crops they actually grew due to increased flooding. Instead, they were entitled to recover the fair rental value of the property during the period of the taking.However, the court vacated the district court's order denying injunctive relief and remanded for the court to give the landowners' request a more focused consideration. The court found that the district court had relied heavily on the law of standing, which was not at issue, and had ventured into areas that had little bearing on a proper evaluation of the request for injunctive relief. View "Watkins v. Lawrence County, Arkansas" on Justia Law

Cory Sessler, a religious preacher, and his group were preaching loudly at a commercial festival in Davenport, Iowa. The festival was held in a fenced-off area of the city's downtown streets and sidewalks, which were typically considered a "traditional public forum". However, during the festival, pedestrian access was controlled and vendors had rented spaces to sell goods. Sessler and his group, who were not paying vendors, were asked by police officers to relocate outside the fences due to complaints from nearby vendors. Sessler later sued the officers and the city, alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights.The district court denied Sessler's request for a preliminary injunction, a decision which was affirmed by the appellate court. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the officers did not violate Sessler's rights and that they were protected by qualified immunity. The court also granted summary judgment to the city on the official-policy claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed that qualified immunity applied to the claims against the officers. The court found that it was unclear whether the fenced-off city streets and sidewalks remained a "traditional public forum" or served as a less-protected "limited public forum" during the festival. The court also found that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the officers' actions were anything but content neutral or that such actions were unreasonable. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Sessler v. City of Davenport, Iowa" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the Walton family and the Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority over the installation of sewer lines on the Walton's property. The Waltons claimed that the installation constituted a "taking" under the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, for which they were entitled to "just compensation". The Sanitary Authority argued that the claim was time-barred under Oregon law, as it was not brought within the six-year limitations period.The trial court granted the Sanitary Authority's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the claim was indeed time-barred. The Waltons appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The Waltons then petitioned for review by the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The court held that the Waltons' claim was subject to the six-year limitations period established by Oregon law. The court further held that the claim accrued when the sewer lines were installed, which was no later than 1995, and therefore, the six-year limitations period expired in 2001, sixteen years before the Waltons filed their complaint. Consequently, the court concluded that the Waltons' claim was time-barred. View "Walton v. Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed a case involving a group of plaintiffs who owned properties near proposed wind turbine sites in Page County, Iowa. The plaintiffs sued the county, its board of supervisors, and county officials after the board issued a commercial wind energy permit to Shenandoah Hills Wind Project, LLC (SHW). The plaintiffs claimed that the issuance of the permit violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Iowa Constitution, Iowa Code, and county ordinances. They also claimed that county officials violated the Iowa Open Meetings Act by holding nonpublic meetings on SHW's application. The defendants removed the case to federal court based on the federal due process claim.The district court dismissed the federal due process claim for lack of prudential standing and as implausibly pleaded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It also dismissed the state claims as time-barred under Iowa law and implausibly pleaded under Rule 12(b)(6). After the district court's decision, the county revoked the permit. Despite the revocation, the plaintiffs appealed the district court's order.The Court of Appeals held that the county's revocation of SHW's permit mooted the plaintiffs' claims, except for their claims under the Iowa Open Meetings Act. The court affirmed the district court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims and its dismissal of them. The court vacated the remainder of the district court's order and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the non-Open Meetings claims as moot. View "Hunter v. Page County, Iowa" on Justia Law

Eight men convicted of sexual offenses between 1982 and 1994 challenged the constitutionality of the 2004 Tennessee Sexual Offender and Violent Sexual Offender Registration, Verification, and Tracking Act (“the Act”) and its subsequent amendments. The Act required them to comply with various reporting requirements and geographical restrictions imposed on all sex offenders. The plaintiffs argued that the laws violated the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee agreed with the plaintiffs and issued an injunction prohibiting Governor Lee and Director Rausch from enforcing the entire Tennessee code against the plaintiffs. The court also issued a declaratory judgment against unnamed parties who might also enforce the Act.The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appellate court disagreed with the district court's decision. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue Governor Lee and ordered the lower court to dismiss him from the suit. The court also found that the district court's injunction was overly broad and unjustified. The appellate court reversed in part the district court’s judgment that the Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and remanded the case with orders to vacate the declaratory judgment, dissolve the injunction against Governor Lee, dismiss Governor Lee from the suit based on a lack of standing, and to modify the injunction against Director Rausch consistent with its opinion. View "John Doe #1 v. Lee" on Justia Law

The case involves Shirley Ann Carpin, who sued Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation and Clifton Associates on behalf of her mother's estate for negligence and wrongful death. She alleged that the defendants caused the asbestos exposure that led to her mother's mesothelioma and subsequent death. Her mother, Shirley Hilster, was exposed to asbestos through her husband, who worked as a pipefitter and regularly came home with asbestos-contaminated clothes. Hilster's husband worked for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., where Clifton Associates had installed asbestos. Hilster was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer caused by asbestos exposure, in July 2020 and died three months later.The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on the twenty-year statute of repose under 12 V.S.A. § 518(a), finding the “last occurrence” to which her mother’s mesothelioma was attributed fell outside the repose period. Carpin appealed, arguing that her claims are not barred by § 518(a)’s repose period and, in the alternative, that § 518(a) violates the Vermont Constitution.The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court determined that the “last occurrence” to which Hilster’s mesothelioma was attributed was her last known exposure to asbestos in 1995. The court further concluded that the statute was constitutional. The court rejected Carpin's argument that the “last occurrence” was the cellular changes that resulted in her 2020 mesothelioma diagnosis. The court also rejected Carpin's constitutional challenge, finding that the statute of repose did not arbitrarily disadvantage any part of the community and was a valid legislative prerogative. View "Carpin v. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation" on Justia Law

David and Catherine Floam, residents of Cobb County, Georgia, sought a declaratory judgment against the Cobb County Commission, arguing that the Commission had unconstitutionally altered district boundaries that had been established by the General Assembly in 2022. The Floams argued that the Commission's amendment, which changed their voting district, exceeded the County's Home Rule powers under the Georgia Constitution. The trial court ruled in favor of the Floams, finding that the Commission's amendment did indeed exceed its Home Rule powers.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court found that while the Floams had constitutional standing to challenge the Commission's amendment, they did not demonstrate any uncertainty regarding their future conduct that warranted declaratory relief. The court concluded that the Floams' claim was an attempt to enforce accrued rights and guide the future conduct of the defendants, which is insufficient to state a claim for declaratory relief. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, without reaching the merits of the constitutional arguments. View "COBB COUNTY v. FLOAM" on Justia Law