Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs, property owners in Danbury, Connecticut, challenged the tax assessments on their properties, each valued at over one million dollars, by appealing to the Superior Court. They were required by statute to file appraisals of their properties within 120 days of filing their appeals. The plaintiffs requested extensions to this deadline, which the court granted. However, they failed to file the appraisals with the court by the extended deadlines, although they did provide the appraisals to the defendant's counsel.The trial court initially dismissed five of the six tax appeals for failure to meet the filing deadline, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court later granted the plaintiffs' motions to open the judgments of dismissal and for reargument, citing similar cases where the court had not dismissed appeals under similar circumstances. The court denied the defendant's corrected motion to dismiss the sixth appeal, finding no prejudice to the defendant from the late filing.The defendant appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs' failure to timely file the appraisals. The plaintiffs contended that the appeal was moot because they had filed new tax appeals under a recent statutory amendment allowing for such actions if previous appeals were dismissed under certain conditions.The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the appeal was not moot, as the underlying appeals were not "dismissed" for purposes of the new statutory provision, given that the judgments of dismissal had been opened. The court further held that the appraisal filing requirement in § 12-117a (a) (2) is not subject matter jurisdictional. The requirement is mandatory but arises after the commencement of a tax appeal, and the time period for filing the appraisal can be extended by the court for good cause. The judgments of the Superior Court were affirmed. View "7 Germantown Road, LLC v. Danbury" on Justia Law

A fire destroyed the Chimayo post office in New Mexico, which was leased by Thomas Workman to the United States Postal Service (USPS). Workman filed a petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to take five depositions before deciding whether to sue USPS. He claimed he needed these depositions to complete his investigation into the fire's cause, responsible parties, and USPS's operation of the facility. The petition was denied because Workman did not provide a valid reason why he could not already bring a lawsuit or explain why the testimony would be lost if not taken immediately.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Workman's petition. The court found that Workman failed to show an inability to bring a lawsuit and a risk of losing testimony. Workman argued that he could not bring his claims due to an incomplete investigation and that the testimony might be lost over time. However, the court determined that these reasons did not meet the requirements of Rule 27.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Workman did not demonstrate a true inability to bring a lawsuit or a sufficient risk of losing testimony. The court emphasized that Rule 27 is not intended for discovering facts to frame a complaint but to perpetuate known testimony that might be lost. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the petition. View "Workman v. United States Postal Service" on Justia Law

Curtis Temple, a cattle rancher and member of the Oglala Sioux Indian Tribe (OST), had his grazing permits on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation expire on October 31, 2012. He reapplied for new permits, but another OST member, Donald Buffington, also applied. The OST allocation committee found Temple had over 1,600 cattle, exceeding the 300 animal unit limit, making Buffington the eligible applicant. Temple's permits were awarded to Buffington, and Temple's appeals to the OST executive committee and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) were unsuccessful. Temple continued to graze his cattle on the land allocated to Buffington, leading to multiple trespass notices and eventual impoundment of his cattle by the BIA.Temple filed a lawsuit in the District of South Dakota in August 2015, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and contesting the permit allocation. The district court denied the TRO and dismissed Temple's permit allocation claims, requiring him to exhaust administrative remedies. Temple's due process claims regarding the impoundment of his cattle proceeded, but the district court found that the written notices of trespass provided to Temple were sufficient and did not violate his due process rights. Temple's motion to continue the trial was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Temple was provided due process through the written notices of trespass and had ample opportunity to contest the trespass determinations. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Temple's permit allocation claims for failure to exhaust tribal remedies, as he did not appeal the tribal court's decision. Lastly, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Temple's motion to continue the trial. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Curtis Temple v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Robert E. Dupuis and twelve other plaintiffs filed lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, seeking damages for sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated by the Bishop’s clergy when the plaintiffs were minor children. Their claims were previously barred by the statute of limitations. The Bishop moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that 14 M.R.S. § 752-C(3) (2022), which purports to revive the plaintiffs’ claims, deprives the Bishop of a constitutionally protected vested right.The Business and Consumer Docket (McKeon, J.) denied the Bishop’s motions but reported its orders to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court under Maine Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(c). The court accepted the report to determine whether the retroactive application of section 752-C(3) is constitutional.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the retroactive application of section 752-C(3) contravenes centuries of precedent and multiple provisions of the Maine Declaration of Rights, as well as the Constitution’s provisions regarding separation of powers. The court concluded that once a statute of limitations has expired for a claim, a right to be free of that claim has vested, and the claim cannot be revived. Therefore, section 752-C(3) is unconstitutional as applied to expired claims. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Dupuis v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland" on Justia Law

In 2005, the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department implemented a policy prohibiting firefighters from wearing facial hair that interferes with the sealing surface of a face mask, effectively banning beards. Firefighters who refused to shave were reassigned to administrative duties and faced termination after four days of noncompliance. The Department did not make exceptions for religious reasons. A group of bearded firefighters sued, claiming the policy violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The district court ruled in favor of the firefighters, finding the policy was not the least restrictive means of furthering the Department's interest in operational effectiveness, and issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the policy against them.The firefighters were allowed to work in field operations with their beards until March 2020, when the Department implemented a new facial hair policy due to COVID-19, again reassigning bearded firefighters to administrative roles. The firefighters objected, claiming the new policy violated the 2007 injunction. After unsuccessful settlement negotiations, the firefighters filed a motion for civil contempt, alleging the Department violated the injunction. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the Department acted reasonably under unprecedented circumstances and that any damages were minimal.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court applied the wrong legal framework by assuming it had general discretion to deny contempt despite a potential violation of the injunction. The appellate court vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case, instructing the lower court to determine whether the Department violated the 2007 injunction and if any recognized defenses to contempt applied. The court emphasized that good faith and lack of willfulness are not defenses to civil contempt. View "Potter v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Henry Strickland contested the results of a city commissioner election in Waycross, Georgia, after losing to Alvin Nelson. Strickland argued that the election used an outdated 2005 map of voting districts instead of the correct 2011 map, resulting in 32 voters casting ballots in the wrong districts. The trial court agreed, finding that the use of the 2005 map could have affected the election outcome, which Nelson won by 18 votes. Consequently, the court vacated the election and ordered a new one to be held in November 2024 using the 2011 map.The trial court denied Nelson's motion to dismiss Strickland's petition for insufficient process and service of process and rejected Nelson's argument that the petition should be dismissed for lack of expeditious pursuit. The court found irregularities in the election due to the use of the 2005 map and ordered a new election. Nelson appealed the trial court's decision, and the Supreme Court of Georgia granted his request for a stay pending the appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the 2011 map was never effective because the required filings with the Secretary of State and the clerk of the superior court, as mandated by OCGA § 36-35-5, were never made. Since the 2011 map was not effective at the time of the election, there was no basis for the trial court's conclusion that enough illegal or irregular votes were counted to change or cast doubt on the election outcome. Therefore, Strickland's petition was rejected, and the trial court's order vacating the election was reversed. View "NELSON v. STRICKLAND" on Justia Law

Sherran Wasserman agreed to sell land in Franklin County to Anthony Pham, contingent on the approval of a conditional use permit by the Franklin County Board of Commissioners. Pham applied for the permit to build and operate chicken houses, but the Board denied the application. Wasserman then sued the Board and the County, initially bringing multiple claims under state and federal law. She dismissed some claims, conceded others, and the trial court dismissed her remaining state-law claims due to sovereign immunity. This left two federal claims: one alleging the County violated Pham’s equal protection rights based on race, and another alleging a violation of Wasserman’s equal protection rights as a “class of one.”The trial court denied the County’s motion for summary judgment, applying the federal doctrine of third-party standing, which allows a plaintiff to assert the rights of third parties. The court found genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on standing and the merits of Wasserman’s equal protection claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Wasserman lacked third-party standing and that her “class of one” claim failed as a matter of law.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed whether a plaintiff may rely on the federal doctrine of third-party standing to establish constitutional standing in Georgia courts. The court held that Georgia’s constitutional standing requirements, rooted in the common law and consistent precedent, do not allow a plaintiff to maintain an action by asserting only the rights of a nonparty. The court overruled its previous adoption of the federal doctrine of third-party standing, concluding that a plaintiff must assert her own legal rights to invoke the judicial power of Georgia courts. The judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "WASSERMAN v. FRANKLIN COUNTY" on Justia Law

Shawn Riley, a former prisoner at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF), filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against WSPF’s Health Services Manager, Jolinda Waterman, and Nurse Practitioner Sandra McArdle. Riley alleged that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment. Riley experienced chronic pain and sought specific medical treatments, including high-top shoes recommended by specialists. Despite receiving various treatments, including medications, physical therapy, and custom orthotics, Riley claimed that his pain persisted and that the defendants ignored specialist recommendations.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and denied Riley’s motions to appoint counsel. The court found that the defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Riley’s medical needs, noting that they provided extensive medical care and followed many of the specialists' recommendations. The court also concluded that Riley’s requests for special shoes were reviewed and denied by the Special Needs Committee (SNC) and that the defendants' actions did not amount to deliberate indifference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the defendants did not ignore the specialists' recommendations and provided adequate medical care. The court also found that the defendants' refusal to allow Riley to purchase shoes from outside the approved catalog did not constitute deliberate indifference. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of Riley’s motion to appoint counsel, determining that Riley was competent to litigate his case and that the case did not present complexities that necessitated appointed counsel. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Riley v. Waterman" on Justia Law

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC sought to condemn a 9.89-acre easement on Elizabeth Reynolds' 109-acre farmland in Roanoke County, Virginia, under the Natural Gas Act. The district court granted partial summary judgment and a preliminary injunction for immediate possession to Mountain Valley Pipeline, leaving the issue of just compensation unresolved. Reynolds submitted two expert reports to determine compensation, which the district court excluded, leading to a summary judgment in favor of Mountain Valley Pipeline.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia excluded Reynolds' expert reports, citing Rule 71.1(h) and Rule 702. The court found the first report speculative and the second unreliable due to insufficient data. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to Mountain Valley Pipeline, awarding just compensation based on the higher estimate of the pipeline company's experts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its application of Rule 71.1(h) and Rule 702. The appellate court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence should apply identically in eminent domain cases as in other cases, and the district court should not have conflated Rule 71.1(h) with Rule 702. The appellate court also determined that the district court should have made findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record when resolving contested factual issues under Rule 71.1(h). The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 9.89 Acres of Land" on Justia Law

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (MVP) condemned a 0.32-acre access easement on Grace Terry's land in southwestern Virginia to deliver heavy equipment to a section of its pipeline. The key issue in this case is the amount of just compensation MVP must pay Terry for the easement. Terry argued that the easement significantly devalued her land, blocking the best hiking trail and citing recent below-market sales of neighboring properties affected by MVP's actions. The district court excluded Terry's testimony on damages and an expert report she submitted, leading to her appeal.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted MVP partial summary judgment and a preliminary injunction for immediate possession of the easement. The court excluded Terry's testimony on damages, finding it speculative and without a rational basis. It also excluded the expert report by Dennis Gruelle, applying a heightened admissibility standard and determining contested facts at the evidentiary stage. The court then granted MVP summary judgment, awarding Terry $10,409 in just compensation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding most of Terry's testimony and the Gruelle Report. The Fourth Circuit found that Terry's personal knowledge of her land and comparable sales were valid bases for her testimony. It also determined that the district court applied erroneous legal principles by using a heightened evidentiary standard for the expert report. The Fourth Circuit vacated the exclusion of the Gruelle Report and reversed the exclusion of most of Terry's testimony, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 0.32 Acres of Land" on Justia Law