Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The case involves the Perkins County Board of Equalization (the Board) and Mid America Agri Products/Wheatland Industries, LLC (Wheatland). Wheatland owns real property in Perkins County, Nebraska, which includes ethanol production facilities. In 2018, 2019, and 2020, Wheatland protested the valuations set by the Perkins County assessor on this property. The Board denied these protests and affirmed the valuations for all three tax years. Wheatland appealed the Board’s decisions to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC). TERC reversed the Board’s decisions and adopted lower valuations for each of the three tax years.The Board filed a petition for judicial review in the Nebraska Court of Appeals, alleging it was aggrieved by TERC's final decisions. The Board served summons on Wheatland more than 30 days after filing the petition, which is outside the statutory timeframe. However, before summons was served, the Board emailed a courtesy copy of the summons and petition to Wheatland’s counsel. Wheatland’s counsel then filed an appearance of counsel and a “Response to Petition for Review.”The Nebraska Supreme Court held that a voluntary appearance is not a permissible substitute for strict compliance with the statutory requirement to timely serve summons under § 77-5019(2)(b). The court noted that the Legislature has mandated service of summons as one of the jurisdictional prerequisites for judicial review of administrative decisions. Therefore, the court dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction. View "Perkins Cty. Bd. of Equal. v. Mid America Agri Prods." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Mary Roth and Gary Meyer, who were in a relationship and cohabitated from 2002 to 2022. They shared a bank account and ran an intermingled cattle herd. The dispute arose over the ownership of a property and cattle, and the enforcement of oral loan agreements. The property in question was initially owned by Anthony and Jean Ehrmantrout, who transferred it to each other in 1994. After their deaths in 2001, the property was distributed to their grandchildren, Chet, Carlos, and Marty Meyer, as co-trustees of the Jean Ehrmantrout Residuary Trust. In 2004, Marty Meyer transferred his interest in the property to Gary Meyer. In 2010, Gary Meyer transferred his interest in the property to Mary Roth.The District Court found that Gary Meyer had gained ownership of the property through adverse possession and had valid title when he transferred it to Mary Roth in 2010. The court also found that Gary Meyer had converted 13 of Mary Roth's cattle and breached oral loan agreements with her, awarding her damages. Both parties appealed the decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the District Court's decision. The Supreme Court found that the District Court had erred in finding that Gary Meyer had gained ownership of the property through adverse possession. The Supreme Court also found that the District Court had erred in admitting certain evidence, in failing to determine when the alleged conversion of cattle began, in valuing the converted cattle, and in finding that Gary Meyer owed on loan contracts that were unenforceable under the statute of frauds. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. View "Roth v. Meyer" on Justia Law

The case involves a defamation claim brought by Bill Charles, a real estate professional and president of the homeowners' association of the Durham Farms community in Hendersonville, Tennessee, against Donna McQueen, a resident of the same community. McQueen had posted a critical review of Charles on Google, accusing him of using misleading tactics to deceive home buyers. Charles filed a defamation and false light claim against McQueen, who sought dismissal of the claims under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, arguing that Charles could not establish a prima facie case for his claims because he could not prove actual malice.The trial court agreed with McQueen and dismissed the claims. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, agreeing that Charles had to prove actual malice for his false light claim but holding that Charles was not a public figure and therefore did not need to prove actual malice for his defamation claim.The Supreme Court of Tennessee disagreed with the Court of Appeals, holding that Charles is a limited-purpose public figure given his voluntary and prominent role in a controversy concerning changes to the Durham Farms development plan. The court further held that Charles failed to establish a prima facie case of actual malice. The court also rejected Charles’s argument that McQueen waived her request for appellate attorney’s fees by failing to list it as an issue in her Court of Appeals brief. The court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and affirmed in part, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Charles v. McQueen" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Gail M. McCormick, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Narragansett Improvement Company, Inc. (NICO) for injuries she sustained in a motorcycle accident on May 29, 2010. McCormick alleged that she lost control of her motorcycle due to unguarded manhole covers on a road in Cranston, Rhode Island, which NICO was contracted to repair. NICO failed to respond to the lawsuit, and a default judgment was entered against them on November 18, 2011. However, NICO later sought to vacate the default judgment, arguing that they had not begun repairs on the road until after the accident occurred.The Superior Court granted NICO's motion to vacate the default judgment. The case proceeded to a seven-day jury trial in March 2022, which resulted in a verdict in favor of NICO. McCormick subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial justice.McCormick appealed to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, arguing that the Superior Court erred in vacating the default judgment and in denying her motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court found that the Superior Court had abused its discretion in vacating the default judgment without requiring NICO to provide evidence explaining their failure to respond to the lawsuit. The Supreme Court therefore vacated the judgment of the Superior Court and remanded the case for a hearing on the assessment of damages. View "McCormick v. Narragansett Improvement Company, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the will of the late Donelson C. Glassie. The plaintiff, Marcia Sallum Glassie, is the testator’s former wife. She appealed from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendant, Paul Doucette, in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Donelson C. Glassie. The Superior Court affirmed an order of the Newport Probate Court denying the plaintiff’s petition for leave to file a claim out of time against the estate. The denied claim would have alleged a breach of contract, based on the plaintiff’s contention that a key provision of the testator’s will violated the terms of the couple’s property-settlement agreement.The plaintiff and the testator were married in 1986, had three children, and were divorced in 1993. According to their property-settlement agreement (PSA), the testator was to execute a will that would not only treat his obligations under the PSA as “a claim against any assets in [his] [e]state” but also “specifically bequest to [plaintiff] an amount equal to said obligations.” A dispute soon unfolded over what the PSA required of the testator’s will.In 2017, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island vacated the Superior Court judgment on multiple grounds. Relevant to the present appeal, the court determined “that the disputed provision in the will is ambiguous” because it “does not clearly specify under what circumstances plaintiff is to receive the sum of $2,000,000 or the circumstances under which she is to receive such other amount necessary to satisfy all of [the testator’s] remaining obligations.” Because “a proper resolution of this matter require[d] factfinding and conclusions of law with respect to [the] testator’s intent,” the court remanded the case to the Superior Court.Back in Superior Court, the plaintiff sought to amend her complaint with a claim for breach of contract. The Superior Court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint, in part because she did not first submit the claim to the probate court, and also because the applicable statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff thereafter filed a petition in the Newport Probate Court for leave to file a claim out of time and, after the court denied her petition, she appealed that denial to the Superior Court.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, concluding that the plaintiff’s failure to timely present her claim for breach of contract was not due to excusable neglect and, therefore, her claim must be denied. View "Glassie v. Doucette" on Justia Law

This case involves a medical negligence claim brought by John Armour, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Judith Armour, against David Bader, M.D., Neil Brandon, M.D., and South County Hospital Healthcare System d.b.a. South County Cardiology. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants negligently failed to provide adequate follow-up and treatment to Judith Armour following a stress test, which ultimately led to her death from a heart attack the next day. The stress test results were "markedly abnormal" and indicated potential significant coronary artery disease, but Mrs. Armour was sent home after the staff determined she was medically stable.The case was tried in the Washington County Superior Court. The jury heard testimony from various witnesses, including the nurses, the defendant-doctors, Mrs. Armour’s family, and expert testimony from both sides regarding the applicable standard of care and causation. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on all counts. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the jury’s verdict was against the fair preponderance of the evidence and that the trial justice erred in several respects. The trial justice denied the motion, concluding that the overwhelming weight of the evidence supported the jury’s verdict.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, the plaintiff argued that the trial justice erred in refusing to issue a jury instruction based on a previous court decision, erred in permitting defendants’ standard-of-care expert to utilize the referring doctor’s records, and erred in limiting cross-examination of that expert regarding a particular study. The Supreme Court found that the trial justice's refusal to issue the requested jury instruction was prejudicial and constituted reversible error. The court also found that it was an error to allow the expert to use the referring physician’s records to support his opinions as defendants did not have access to this information when determining if Mrs. Armour was stable. Lastly, the court concluded it was an abuse of discretion to limit cross-examination on a point that went to the heart of the most important standard-of-care issue in the case. The judgment of the Superior Court was vacated and the case was remanded for a new trial. View "Armour v. Bader" on Justia Law

Samantha Peifer, an employee of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, filed a lawsuit against her employer alleging pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Peifer, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and later became pregnant, requested accommodations from her employer due to her inability to perform certain tasks. Her requests were initially denied, but later granted after she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However, she was not allowed to work from home as requested due to her high-risk pregnancy and exposure to COVID-19. Peifer eventually resigned, citing discriminatory treatment, and filed additional charges with the EEOC.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Board's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Peifer could not establish a prima facie case for any of her claims. Peifer appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the District Court's decision. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that Peifer's claims partly failed but concluded that the District Court was best situated to analyze the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis on whether Peifer makes out a prima facie case under an adverse employment action theory. The Court of Appeals also concluded that Peifer makes out a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination based on the Board’s denials of her light-duty requests under a failure to accommodate theory. The case was remanded for further analysis on Peifer’s adverse employment theory and failure to accommodate theory, while the District Court’s decisions on Peifer’s constructive discharge allegation and retaliation claim were affirmed. View "Peifer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole" on Justia Law

In April 2018, Benjamin Evans was shot and killed by Police Deputy Brian Krook in Lake Elmo, Minnesota, after Evans knelt in a crosswalk with a loaded gun pointed at his own head. Following a criminal trial, Krook was acquitted of a second-degree manslaughter charge. Subsequently, Evans' father, William O. Evans, Jr., filed a civil lawsuit against Krook under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Krook sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a defense unavailable when an officer uses deadly force against someone who does not pose an immediate threat of serious physical harm to another.The District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Krook's motion for summary judgment, citing genuine factual disputes over whether Evans' gun was ever pointed at the officers and whether Evans posed an immediate threat to them. Krook appealed this decision, challenging the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in reviewing the case, first addressed the question of jurisdiction. The court noted that it did not have jurisdiction to review the district court's determination regarding evidence sufficiency, i.e., what facts a party may or may not be able to prove at trial. The court's jurisdiction was limited to the purely legal question of whether the conduct that the district court found was adequately supported in the record violated a clearly established federal right.The court found that the availability of qualified immunity in this case hinged on whether Krook acted reasonably under the circumstances by shooting Evans because Evans either pointed his gun at another or otherwise wielded his gun in a menacing fashion. The court concluded that the inconclusive nighttime videos of Evans' actions did not clearly contradict the district court's factual determinations. Therefore, resolving the underlying factual dispute was beyond the court's limited review. As such, the court dismissed the appeal, stating it lacked the jurisdiction to resolve it. View "Evans v. Krook" on Justia Law

The case involves Mike Govender Hatchet, a Sierra Leone citizen who sought to adjust his immigration status to that of a lawful permanent resident in the United States. Hatchet applied for discretionary relief multiple times, but the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied each application, citing facts that rendered Hatchet ineligible for discretionary relief. Hatchet challenged the agency's actions in federal district court, arguing that the agency relied on facts clearly at odds with the record.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The district court dismissed Hatchet's case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, agreeing with the defendants' argument that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Patel demonstrated that Hatchet's claims were not subject to judicial review due to a jurisdiction-stripping statute.The case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the factual findings of USCIS, and because Hatchet's arguments were entirely fact-bound, the court agreed that the district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court's decision was based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Patel, which held that federal courts are without jurisdiction to review both discretionary and non-discretionary judgments related to the granting of relief, including factual findings. View "Hatchet v. Andrade" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit brought by homeowners in the Falcon Ridge subdivision in Billings, Montana, against Buscher Construction and Development, Inc., and other related entities and individuals (collectively referred to as the "Buschers"). The homeowners alleged that the Buschers negligently designed and developed the subdivisions, failed to construct homes to mitigate against the possibility of differential settlement on hydro-collapsible soils, and failed to disclose material adverse facts known to them as the original owners of all the lots within the subdivision.The District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County, certified the class action. The Buschers appealed this decision, arguing that the proposed class did not satisfy the prerequisites for class certification under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and that the court abused its discretion by certifying the class under Rule 23(b)(3).The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the proposed class satisfied the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a). The court also found that the class action was superior to other methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy, as required by Rule 23(b)(3). The court concluded that the homeowners' claims were not dependent upon individual conduct but on the Buschers' alleged uniform negligence. The court also noted that the lower court has the discretion to revisit certification if class claims no longer predominate as the case proceeds. View "Busher v. Cook" on Justia Law