Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

This case concerns requests made by two media organizations to the Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS) for information about the number of child abuse or neglect reports made from three state-funded residential child care facilities (RCCFs) over a three-year period, and how many were screened for investigation. CDHS denied the requests, asserting that providing the facility-specific numbers would violate the confidentiality provisions of the Colorado Children's Code Records and Information Act, specifically section 19-1-307(1)(a), which protects the name, address, and other identifying information of any child, family, or informant in such reports. The media organizations declined CDHS's offer to provide aggregate numbers for all three facilities combined and sued for disclosure of the per-facility data under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA).The Denver District Court agreed with CDHS, holding that subsection (1)(a) barred disclosure of the requested information, as it would necessarily identify the addresses involved in the reports. On appeal, a divided panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals found the statute ambiguous and, after considering legislative history and potential constitutional issues, determined that only information that constitutes "identifying information" is protected. The appellate court remanded the case to the district court to determine if the requested disclosures would reveal identifying information.On review, the Supreme Court of Colorado held that section 19-1-307(1)(a) is unambiguous and extends confidentiality to all names and addresses of children, families, or informants in reports of child abuse or neglect, as well as any other identifying information. However, the court found that CDHS failed to demonstrate that disclosing the requested six numbers would reveal protected information, as the RCCFs' addresses are already public. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and ordered disclosure of the six numbers. View "Brubaker v. Colo. Sun & Tegna" on Justia Law

A group of business and industry associations challenged the Montana Attorney General’s March 6, 2026 determination that Proposed Ballot Measure No. 10 was legally sufficient to proceed in the initiative process. Ballot Measure No. 10 sought to amend state law by defining “artificial persons” and excluding “political spending power” from the rights granted to such entities. The challengers argued that the measure was facially unconstitutional because it restricted political speech, was vague, and improperly conditioned benefits on the waiver of constitutional rights.The challenge was brought directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana under its original jurisdiction. The Attorney General had performed only a procedural review, declining to address the measure’s substantive constitutionality due to a prior order by the First Judicial District Court in Ellingson v. State, which had enjoined the statutory provision that would have allowed such substantive review. The petitioners requested the Supreme Court to require the Attorney General to review the measure’s constitutionality and to reverse his finding of legal sufficiency.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the Attorney General does not have authority to consider the substantive constitutionality of proposed ballot initiatives during legal sufficiency review under current law and precedent. The Court reaffirmed that pre-election constitutional challenges to initiatives are generally disfavored, as the people have a constitutional right to use the initiative process. Because Ballot Measure No. 10 had not yet qualified for the ballot, the Court declined to address the merits of the constitutional arguments, finding such review would be advisory. The Court denied and dismissed the petition, and also denied as moot motions to intervene and to file amicus briefs. View "Montana Mining Assn. v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

A trademark holder brought an action against numerous foreign online vendors, alleging that they infringed her registered mark by selling counterfeit goods through e-commerce platforms such as Walmart.com and eBay.com. The vendors, all based in China, operated online storefronts that were accessible from the United States and offered shipping to U.S. customers, including those in Illinois. The plaintiff attached a “Schedule A” list to her complaint identifying the vendors. The defendants did not initially appear in the case.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, entered a default judgment against the defendants. The court found personal jurisdiction over them on the basis that they operated online stores targeting U.S. consumers, offered shipping to Illinois, and had allegedly sold infringing products to Illinois residents. The evidence supporting the finding of Illinois sales included website screenshots showing that a product could be ordered and shipped to a Chicago address, but did not show that any actual sales to Illinois occurred. After the default judgment, the defendants appeared and moved to vacate the judgment, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service. The district court denied the motion, reaffirming its prior findings.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that there was no evidence of any actual sales to Illinois residents. The court held that merely operating an online store accessible in Illinois and offering shipping to Illinois, without completed sales in the forum, is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. The district court’s findings to the contrary were clearly erroneous. The Seventh Circuit vacated the default judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Liu v. Monthly" on Justia Law

Two minor plaintiffs, A.G. and G.W., were sex trafficked as teenagers by traffickers who repeatedly brought them to United Inn, a hotel in Decatur, Georgia, owned and operated by Northbrook Industries, Inc. Their traffickers spent time each day at the hotel interacting with staff, and on two occasions, hotel employees allowed the minors back into their room at the trafficker’s request even though they had no identification and were not on the reservation. The hotel was in a high-crime area with frequent prostitution arrests, and it failed to post required anti-trafficking notices. Another plaintiff, C.B., a minor, was sex trafficked at The Hilltop Inn, owned by Naseeb Investments, Inc., by a registered sex offender who was a long-term guest. The hotel placed this offender in an area with other sex offenders, rented him a second room, and complied with his request not to clean it. Employees testified to a pattern of sex trafficking and prostitution at the hotel.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, all three plaintiffs brought civil beneficiary claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) against the hotel operators, alleging the hotels knowingly benefited from and participated in trafficking ventures. A.G. and G.W. also asserted state law negligence claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding insufficient evidence of participation in a trafficking venture or knowledge, and concluded A.G. and G.W. were not invitees for their negligence claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the TVPRA’s “participation in a venture” element requires more than an arms-length transaction but does not require knowledge of a specific victim. The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to infer the hotels provided personal support to the traffickers, satisfying both the participation and knowledge elements. The court also found disputes of fact regarding invitee status under Georgia law. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the grants of summary judgment and remanded the cases for further proceedings. View "C.B. v. Naseeb Investments, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a long-term employee of a company in Virginia, reported concerns to his supervisor about violations related to overtime compensation. After raising these concerns and authoring a letter outlining managerial failures that affected employee compensation, the plaintiff was terminated by his supervisor and the plant manager. He then brought suit in Virginia state court against both individuals, who he alleged were Virginia citizens, claiming they violated public policy as set forth in Virginia law prohibiting retaliation for discussing wage information.The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, asserting diversity jurisdiction. They argued that one defendant was not a Virginia citizen and that the other, the supervisor, was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The district court agreed, finding there was no possibility that the plaintiff could state a viable claim against the supervisor under the relevant public policy exception to at-will employment recognized in Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville. On that basis, the district court denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. It held that the standard for finding fraudulent joinder was not met because it was not impossible for the plaintiff to establish a claim against the nondiverse defendant under state law; there was uncertainty in Virginia law as to whether a Bowman claim could be brought on these facts. As a result, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of remand and its dismissal of the complaint, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court’s main holding was that the district court erred in finding fraudulent joinder and retaining jurisdiction. View "Skidmore v. Schinke" on Justia Law

A tornado struck Goodhue County, Minnesota, damaging the roof of a mall owned by Rymer Companies, LLC. The roof had preexisting water damage, and the dispute centered on whether the insurance company, Cincinnati Insurance Company, was liable only for the tornado-related damage or for the cost of a full roof replacement, which was necessary to comply with local building codes. Cincinnati estimated its liability at about $10,000 for the tornado damage, while Rymer argued that a new roof was required, costing up to $1.7 million. After the parties could not agree, Cincinnati initiated a declaratory judgment action in federal court, and an appraisal panel awarded $23,226 for "mall roof repair."The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota initially concluded that any increased repair costs were Rymer’s responsibility, finding that the costs resulted from preexisting damage rather than the tornado. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that it was sufficient if the tornado was a "but-for" cause of the county’s enforcement of the building code, and remanded the case for further proceedings, including clarification of the ambiguous appraisal award.Upon remand, the district court sought clarification from the appraisal panel as to whether the award covered repairs to the roof’s surface or just the flashing. The majority of the panel clarified that only flashing replacement was included. Rymer attempted to introduce later statements by the panel’s umpire to expand the scope of the award, but the district court held that such testimony is relevant only to allegations of panel misconduct, not to reinterpret or enlarge an award. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed this decision, holding that under Minnesota law, district courts may seek clarification of ambiguous appraisal awards, and that appraiser testimony cannot be used to expand or alter an award unless there is evidence of fraud or wrongdoing. View "Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Rymer Companies, LLC" on Justia Law

GAC Equipment, doing business as Austin Crane Service, hired Diamond Hydraulics to repair a crane’s cylinder, which later bent during a lifting operation. Each party blamed the other: Diamond argued that improper maintenance and operation by Austin Crane caused the failure, while Austin Crane claimed Diamond’s repairs were improper and used unsuitable materials. The dispute intensified during discovery, particularly over Diamond's ability to inspect the cylinder, and both parties made late expert witness designations. As trial approached, Diamond’s designated expert, Dr. Macfarlan, left his job, moved out of state, and refused to testify. Diamond attempted to substitute another expert, Dr. Hoerner, who had participated in preparing the expert report. Austin Crane objected, and the district court denied Diamond’s request to substitute its expert and to continue the trial.The 425th Judicial District Court in Williamson County, Texas, proceeded with the trial without Diamond’s causation expert. The jury found in favor of Austin Crane on both breach of contract and breach of warranty claims. Diamond appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing the late expert substitution. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s decision.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case, focusing on whether Diamond showed good cause for its late expert designation under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6. The Supreme Court held that Diamond demonstrated good cause: the unavailability of Diamond’s original expert was beyond its control, Diamond acted promptly and in good faith to substitute an expert, and the excluded testimony was critical to its case. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion and that disparate treatment was given to the parties’ late designations. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. View "DIAMOND HYDRAULICS, INC. v. GAC EQUIPMENT, LLC" on Justia Law

The dispute arose from a contract signed on May 12, 2021, under which Kindra Cooper agreed to purchase a house from Highland Rim Investments, LLC. Delays in closing led the parties to enter into three extensions, but the sale never concluded. Cooper then sued for specific performance, declaratory judgment, and damages, later amending her complaint to add additional defendants and claims, including various forms of misrepresentation and a request to pierce Highland Rim’s corporate veil. During litigation, certain claims were dismissed, and after a jury trial, the jury awarded Cooper compensatory and punitive damages against Highland Rim and Monique Dollone, but found for other defendants on the misrepresentation claims.The Madison Circuit Court entered judgment on the jury's verdict, awarded Cooper attorney fees, granted her motion to pierce the corporate veil as to one defendant, and later appointed a receiver over Highland Rim to preserve its fiscal health until the judgment was satisfied. The defendants moved for post-judgment relief, which was denied, and then appealed both the judgment and the receivership order.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the appeals. It found that the trial court erred by requiring the parties to strike the jury from a list of only 21 prospective jurors, rather than the 24 required by Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 47(b). This procedural error mandated reversal. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that the trial court’s judgment in favor of Cooper and its order appointing a receiver over Highland Rim must be reversed. The cases were remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Highland Rim Investments, LLC v. Cooper" on Justia Law

A woman sought to challenge the probate of a will and asserted claims seeking recognition as an heir, either as a biological child or by equitable adoption, following the death of a decedent who resided in Tallapoosa County. After letters of administration had initially been issued to her by the Montgomery Probate Court, subsequent proceedings transferred jurisdiction to the Tallapoosa Probate Court, which admitted a document as the decedent’s will and appointed other individuals as personal representatives. The woman then filed a pro se complaint in the Tallapoosa Circuit Court, contesting the will and requesting various relief, including a DNA test to establish her relationship to the decedent.The Tallapoosa Circuit Court held a hearing, denied her request to compel DNA testing of the proponents, allowed her to submit her own certified DNA evidence, and later dismissed the action on the ground that she had failed to provide proof of relationship as required. She appealed to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, which transferred the appeal to the Supreme Court of Alabama due to jurisdictional reasons.The Supreme Court of Alabama determined that, due to statutory changes enacted by Act No. 2022-427, original jurisdiction for will contests relating to wills filed for probate on or after January 1, 2023, lies with the probate court, not the circuit court, except in cases where a proceeding has been properly removed to the circuit court. Finding that no removal had occurred, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the will contest. The Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court made no determination as to the woman’s ability to bring a will contest in the probate court. View "Glenn v. Caldwell" on Justia Law

A cannabis trade association challenged a policy implemented by the 23rd Judicial District (Berks County, Pennsylvania) that governs participation in various treatment courts, such as drug and mental health courts. The judicial district’s policy, as revised following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Gass v. 52nd Judicial District, Lebanon County, allows the use of medical marijuana by treatment court enrollees on a case-by-case basis, requiring physician documentation. The association argued that the policy, by potentially excluding lawful medical marijuana users from treatment courts, violated the Medical Marijuana Act’s immunity provision and caused financial harm to its member dispensaries through lost sales.The Pennsylvania Cannabis Coalition and an individual petitioner, D.M., filed a petition for review in the Commonwealth Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Commonwealth Court found that D.M. lacked standing based on his circumstances and that the Coalition’s claimed financial injury to its members was too remote and speculative to establish associational standing. The court dismissed the petition for lack of standing and did not reach the merits of the claim regarding the Medical Marijuana Act.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case on direct appeal, focusing solely on whether the association had standing. The Court held that the association’s alleged financial harm was not a substantial, direct, and immediate interest sufficient to satisfy the standing requirements under Pennsylvania law. The harm was considered indirect and remote because the policy did not regulate dispensaries or their transactions, but rather affected court applicants. The Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s dismissal, concluding that the association lacked standing to challenge the judicial district’s amended policy. View "PA Cannabis Coalition v. 23rd Judicial Dist" on Justia Law