|
|
|
Oregon high court keeps state virus restrictions in place
Press Release |
2020/05/14 12:36
|
The Oregon Supreme Court has kept statewide virus restrictions in place by halting a judge’s order to end them in a lawsuit claiming the governor exceeded her authority when she shut down in-person religious services.
Baker County Circuit Judge Matthew Shirtcliff ruled Monday that Gov. Kate Brown erred by not seeking the Legislature’s approval to extend her stay-at-home orders beyond a 28-day limit. Brown’s lawyers appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, which just hours later put a hold on Shirtcliff’s decree until the high court’s justices can review the matter.
Presiding Justice Thomas Balmer gave both sides until Friday to submit legal briefs. He did not give a timeline for a decision.
The lower court judge had issued his opinion in response to a lawsuit filed earlier this month by 10 churches around Oregon that argued the state’s social distancing directives were unconstitutional.
In a statement late Monday, Brown, a Democrat, praised the state Supreme Court action.
“There are no shortcuts for us to return to life as it was before this pandemic. Moving too quickly could return Oregon to the early days of this crisis, when we braced ourselves for hospitals to be overfilled,” she said.
Kevin Mannix, an attorney representing businesses in the case, said Tuesday that he was encouraged that the state Supreme Court seemed to be taking the case seriously. Normally, briefings in cases before the court wouldn’t be due until June 1, he said.
“Every day that the governor’s order remains in effect, people are prevented from being able to assemble peaceably, their free expression rights are limited … and most significantly, their freedom of religion rights are restricted,” he said. “This extraordinary power that she’s been exercising has a time limit on it.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court won’t take case prompted by Flint water crisis
Press Release |
2020/01/16 16:17
|
The Supreme Court has declined to take a case stemming from the 2014 water crisis in Flint, Michigan.
Approximately 25,000 people have sued over the crisis, in which a change in the source of the city’s water resulted in lead contamination.
The case the justices turned away without comment Tuesday involves a lawsuit against the city and water regulators, most of whom were responsible for making sure federal clean water laws were followed. The lawsuit claims the officials failed to protect residents from a foreseeable risk of harm from exposure to lead. The lawsuit and others like it claim that the public has a constitutional right to “bodily integrity” that was violated.
The city and officials have argued they should be immune from being sued, but lower courts have disagreed. The lawsuit and others like it are expected to go forward in lower courts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court won't hear case over California beach access
Press Release |
2018/10/01 23:24
|
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from a California billionaire who doesn't want to open a road on his property so that the public can access a beach.
The justices said that they will not take up Vinod Khosla's appeal of a California appeals court decision. The case had the potential to upend California's longstanding efforts to keep beaches open to the public.
Khosla bought the property in the San Francisco Bay Area for $32.5 million in 2008 and later blocked the public from accessing it. That prompted a lawsuit by the nonprofit Surfrider Foundation.
A state appeals court ruled last year that Khosla needed to apply for a coastal development permit before denying public access.
Khosla - a venture capitalist who co-founded the Silicon Valley technology company, Sun Microsystems - closed a gate, put up a no-access sign and painted over a billboard at the entrance to the property that had advertised access to the beach, according to the appellate ruling.
The secluded beach south of Half Moon Bay, about 35 miles (56 kilometers) south of San Francisco, is only accessible by a road that goes over Khosla's land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court examines Kentucky's medical review panels
Press Release |
2018/08/08 23:32
|
After Ezra Claycomb was born with severe brain damage and cerebral palsy, his mother considered filing a medical malpractice lawsuit. But in 2017, Kentucky's Republican-controlled legislature passed a law requiring all such lawsuits first be reviewed by a panel of doctors.
The law gave the panel nine months to issue an opinion on whether the lawsuit is frivolous — yet section 14 of Kentucky's Constitution says every person has access to the courts "without ... delay."
Claycomb's parents sued to block the new law, making Kentucky the latest state to have its medical review panels challenged in court.
A circuit judge agreed the law was unconstitutional. But Republican Gov. Matt Bevin appealed that decision to the state Supreme Court, which heard arguments Wednesday.
"This is a modern day version of the poll tax," said attorney J. Guthrie True, who represents Claycomb in a lawsuit he says has class action status to represent all patients. "This has one purpose, and that is to obstruct the courthouse door."
Matthew Kuhn, an attorney for the governor, said the state Constitution's ban on delaying access to the courts only applies to the court system itself. It does not apply to the legislature, which he says has the power to impose rules on the court system. He noted Kentucky has other laws that limit when people can file lawsuits. For example, heirs wanting to sue the executor of an estate must wait at least six months after the executor has been appointed before they can do so. Kuhn says that law has never been challenged.
Kuhn said the medical review process is helpful because it gets the two sides talking before a lawsuit is filed, which could jumpstart settlement discussions. It also makes sure both sides have all the evidence collected before they go to a judge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agency: School boards, counties should stay out of court
Press Release |
2018/03/29 23:19
|
School districts across North Carolina will present fall funding requests in the coming weeks, with the threat of costly and lengthy litigation if local county commissioners can't see eye-to-eye with school board members on spending.
The General Assembly's government watchdog agency told legislators Monday they should pass a law barring school districts from suing when funding disagreements can't be settled through formal mediation.
The Program Evaluation Division recommended the new law instead direct a county fund a district when mediation is exhausted through a formula based on student membership and inflation.
Some committee members hearing the agency report questioned whether it was worth changing the law since school funding impasses reached the courts just four times between 1997 and 2015. It took 21 months on average to resolve them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
