Posted 22 Jan 2014 in Tips and Tactics
Attorneys often write exhaustive and exhausting sentences.  Attorneys may not be the worst offenders, as Wikipedia cites Jonathan Coe’s 2001 novel The Rotters’ Club as containing a 13,955-word sentence. Typewriter In Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2011), the court criticized a complaint with at least 23 sentences with 100 or more words, including sentences of 385, 345, and 291 words.  Average sentence length should be 18 to 20 words, and Word will tell you that, along with other readability indicators. Some sentences have to be relatively long, but long sentences should be interspersed with short ones.  Long sentences often can be made more comprehensible with the use of bullets or numbered lists.  Sentences that are initially long when drafted can be revised into two or several shorter sentences. Why does it matter? 

Posted 21 Jan 2014 in Monday Morning Review

Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments. Second Circuit Evergreen Assocaition, Inc. v. City of New York, No. 11-2735 (Jan. 17, 2014) (affirming in part and reversing in part preliminary injunction barring enforcement of City law requiring disclosures by pregnancy service centers in First-Amendment challenge). Sixth Circuit DeLeon v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission, No. 12-2377 (Jan. 14, 2014) (reversing grant of summary judgment for County Road Commission in employment-discrimination case) (January 13, 2014, through January 17, 2014) Credit: Image courtesy of Flickr by Tracy Collins (creative common...

Posted 13 Jan 2014 in Case Notes, IMLA Briefs

This morning, the Supreme Court called for the views of the United States Solicitor General ("CVSG") on whether the Court should grant cert in Comptroller of the Treasury of Md v. Wynne, No. 13-485. The case concerns how the dormant commerce clause limits local taxation. The Court uses the CVSG procedure with respect to only about 10 petitions a year. It indicates at least some degree of interest: the chances of a cert-grant increase significantly in such cases. IMLA and its partners filed the only amicus brief in the case, which...

Posted 13 Jan 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments. They include two unsuccessful due-process challenges -- one to speed-camera programs, the other to booking fees:Gavel Second Circuit Fourth Circuit Seventh Circuit

Posted 08 Jan 2014 in Case Notes, IMLA Briefs
Local governments often establish fixed buffer zones to eliminate congestion and to ensure public safety. Does the First Amendment require a significant change in current local practices?Barricade Next Wednesday, January 15th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could address that question. McCullen v. Coakley, No. 12-1168 concerns whether a Massachusetts law that bars entering or remaining within a 35-foot radius of a reproductive-health-care facility violates the First Amendment. The First Circuit upheld the law as a reasonable, content-neutral limit. Local governments have filed two important amicus curiae briefs in the case. First, IMLA joined the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, the International City/County Management Association, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors in a brief urging the Court to respect state and local governments' need to establish buffer zones to protect public safety. The brief offers a number of examples

Posted 05 Jan 2014 in Monday Morning Review

Happy New Year to all of our readers. Last week was a slow one for the courts. The only significant action for local governments came from the Ninth Circuit: The court granted rehearing en banc in Valenzuela v. Maricopa County, No. 11-16847 (Jan. 2, 2014). The case involves the constitutionality of Arizona's Proposition 100, which provides that Arizona state courts may not set bail "[f]or serious felony offenses as prescribed by the legislature if the person charged has entered or remained in the United States illegally and...

Posted 29 Dec 2013 in Monday Morning Review

Here are published decisions involving local governments from the federal appellate courts from December 23, 2013, through December 27, 2013: Seventh Circuit Swetlik v. Crawford, No. 12-2675 (Dec. 23, 2013) (affirming grant of summary judgment against police detective who sued City and officers alleging that they violated his First-Amendment rights by voting to file a termination charge against him). DeKalb County v. Federal Housing Finance Authority, No. 1301558 (Dec. 23, 2013) (holding that Fannie Mae is exempt by statute from real-estate transfer taxes levied...

Posted 23 Dec 2013 in Roundup

Be sure to check out details of the Supreme Court Practice Seminar that IMLA and the State and Local Legal Center will host on March 4, 2014. Lisa Soronen, executive director of the State and Local Legal Center, has invited some remarkable Supreme Court practitioners. It is a can't-miss program for anyone intersted in the Court. You can register here....

Posted 23 Dec 2013 in Monday Morning Review
Here are published decisions involving local governments from the federal appellate courts from December 16, 2013, through December 20, 2013: Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit

Posted 16 Dec 2013 in Case Notes
When T-Mobile sought to place a cell tower in a park owned by the City of Huntington Beach, California, the City granted the company all the regulatory approvals it required. But the City also informed T-Mobile that before it would finally lease the company the rights to the City property that it needed, the company must first obtain approval from City voters, under an amendment to the City charter known as Measure C.CellTower T-Mobile refused. It claimed that Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7),  preempts this City requirement. Is T-Mobile correct? Not according to the Ninth Circuit, which decided Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach, No. 10-56877 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2013) last week. The court ruled that because Section 332(c)(7) "applies only to local zoning and land use decisions and does not address a municipality's property rights as a landowner," it does not preempt this local requirement, which concerns only how the City may lease its property. Enacted in 1990, Measure C states: