Sixth Circuit: Laborers' Int'l Union of N.A. v. Terease Neff

 The court whose employees have joined a union is a state, not county, entity for purposes of sovereign immunity, given its constitutional and statutory designation within the state.  The fact that the state has mandated that the county fund the operations of the court and that the county has discretion in setting the salary levels of the employees supports this, as the mandate is from the state.  As the elected state judge exercises ultimate authority in discharging and retaining employees and sets salaries in the first instance, the employment functions of the court are a state matter.  

The Contracts Clause is an insufficient basis for S1983 claims.  

A Takings Clause injunction would require that there was no remedy sounding in contract; mere breach of contract doesn't state a claim for damages under the Clause.  

CBA term in preamble holding that it remains in force until union is decertified or another agreement is reached insufficient to defeat as a matter of law a specific end date in the terms.

Laborers' Int'l Union of N.A. v. Terease Neff

Seventh Circuit: Blake Conyers v. City of Chicago

 

Claim arising from the destruction of arrestees' property after a set period sounds in 14A Due Process or 5A Takings, not under the Fourth Amendment.

While the property was taken under the police power rather than eminent domain, federal constitutional limits remain on the disposal of the items.  In this context, a thirty day holding period with adequate notice suffices for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment.

Screenshot with evidentiary foundation from the head of department suffices to establish that the website was functioning during the relevant period.

Plaintiffs' burden to prove that they lacked access to the internet in order to discover the relevant notice requires that they establish why the specific procedures of mediated inmate internet reference access were insufficient.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2021/D08-18/C:20-1934:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:2749668:S:0

Eighth Circuit: John Pietsch v. Ward County

 

Notice and a hearing on the landowners' applications for variances from a zoning regulation sufficed for procedural due process. The zoning regulation requiring a right of way wasn't irrational, given the public interest in road construction.  Claim of unfair exaction improperly attempts to recast a takings claim as a procedural due process claim.

John Pietsch  v.  Ward County

Third Circuit: Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Sec PA Dept Env Protection

Given the strong presumption of administrative unreviewability until final administrative action, the statute's silence eon the question, combined with a jurisdictional grant over state actions create an inference of unreviwability until after final administrative decision.

As the agency decision takes effect prior to administrative appeal and the administrative appeal happens within an entirely separate proceeding, the agency decision is sufficiently final for statutory exclusive jurisdiction.

Rulemaking notice was sufficient; there is no requirement that notice requirements be set forth in a regulation; notice allowed interested parties to participate meaningfully in a process that was actually pending.

Agency approval conditioned on subsequent permit grant was not intrinsically arbitrary and capricious.

Whether or not a Takings Clause claim can arise under the statute, there is sufficient remedy in the existing appeals process.

Statute and APA allow court to consider pendent claims arising from the state constitution.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/162211p.pdf

Third Circuit: Newark Cab Association v. City of Newark

The owner of a taxi licence has a Constitutional property interest in the licence, but not necessarily in its economic value. 

Sufficient rational basis for treating street-hail cabs differently than app-based services. 

City's licensing scheme does not use language that plainly expresses the intention to create a contractual obligation, and is not definite enough to bind by estoppel,.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/171358p.pdf

Federal Circuit: Martin v. US

Prior to claiming a statutory private easement in public land along a public right of way, claimants must avail themselves of any available special use permit offered by the land manager; denial of such an application makes the case ripe for judicial review.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201616544.op2.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Joshua Vasquez v. Kimberly Foxx

State's expansion of residence restrictions for registered offenders was not an ex post facto penalty, as the conduct regulated is post-enactment knowing residence.  The law does not amount to a taking, since it is a regulation on the use of property, doesn't affect the market value of the property, and plaintiffs acquired the property after enactment.  Procedural due process does not require individual hearings.  The law has a rational basis.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-11/C:17-1061:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2184695:S:0

Ninth Circuit: Chuck Close v. Southeby's Inc.

Express preemption provision in the 1976 Act, together with the provisions on distributions and first sale, preempt state law requiring royalties to the original artist on subsequent sales.  Statements of subsequent Congress as to the preemption implied by VARA  can't be imputed to the earlier law.  Earlier precedent establishing that the 1909 Act did not preempt these claims incorporated common-law notions of distribution and first sale, and is therefore still viable for those claims.

Substantive Due Process undercuts Takings argument, but ultimately a question for remand.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/06/16-56234.pdf

Federal Circuit: Land of Lincoln Mutual Health v. US

No contract-based Takings claim, as there was no contract.

Legislative enactment does not create a property interest cognizable under the Takings Clause.

Dissent: Contract.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1224.Opinion.6-14-2018.pdf

Sixth Circuit: Tri County Wholesale v. Labatt USA Operating Co.

Statutory Interpretation, Takings

A transfer of ownership involving the corporate parent creates a new manufacturing entity which is then able under the state licensing scheme to terminate existing franchise agreements.

No Takings Clause claim, as the licensing scheme is inherently anticompetitive.

Award for economic harm for loss of brand included costs for seeking another supplier -- recovery on both would be double recovery.

Misc. factual findings affirmed.


Tri County Wholesale v. Labatt USA Operating Co.

First Circuit: Paret-Ruiz v. US

Forfeiture, Takings

The statutory remedy is the sole remedy for challenging a civil forfeiture, even when the underlying criminal case doesn't result in conviction.  Waiver of that process waives FTCA remedy.

Court of Claim is sole venue for a Constitutional claim based in the taking -- amount in question here prevents court from having jurisdiction.

No clear error in denial of malicious prosecution clam, as evidence in record supports fact-finder's determination that one of the agents believed the deft to be guilty/


Paret-Ruiz v. US

Fourth Circuit: Central Radio Company Inc. v. City of Norfolk

First Amendment

Municipal sign ordinance was a content-based restriction on speech as it targeted commercial speech.

Aesthetics and traffic safety considerations don't satisfy strict scrutiny.

Insufficient bad intent for selective enforcement claim.

(Appendix: Sign was a protest against pending eminent domain action.)

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/131996A.P.pdf

Federal Circuit: Rogers v. US

Takings, Property conveyance

Where the language of the deed is clear, under Florida law, no statute, policy, or fact can operate to convert an interest in fee simple for the purpose of running a railway to an easement.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/13-5098.Opinion.12-22-2015.1.PDF