Ninth Circuit Tag

Home > Posts tagged "Ninth Circuit" (Page 6)

Posted 24 Feb 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:NinthCircuit Third Circuit
  • M.R. v. Ridley School District, No. 12-4137 (Feb. 20, 2014) (finding under Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act that for "stay put" period: (1) school district must reimburse parents for private-school costs even if parents do not file a claim for payment until after a court has ruled for the school; and (2) the parents' right to interim funding extends through the time of judicial appeal.).
Fourth Circuit

Posted 17 Feb 2014 in Uncategorized
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments: Seventh Circuit Ninth Circuit

Posted 10 Feb 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:SCT pillars Second Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit

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 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:

Posted 16 Dec 2013 in Monday Morning Review

Here are published decisions involving local governments from the federal appellate courts from December 9, 2013, through December 13, 2013: Sixth Circuit Henschel v. Clare County Road Commission, No. 13-1528 (Dec. 13, 2013) (in ADA claim brought by individual not permitted to return to work after accident, reversing grant of summary judgment to road commission because genuine issues of material fact remained about whether individual was qualified). Seventh Circuit Jones v. City of Elkhart, No. 12-3912 (Dec. 12, 2013) (affirming grant of summary judgment for City...

Posted 09 Dec 2013 in Monday Morning Review

Here are published decisions involving local governments from the federal appellate courts from November 25, 2013 through December 6, 2013: Second Circuit American Petroleum and Transport v. City of New York, No. 12-4505 (Dec. 6, 2013) (finding that vessel owner may not be awarded damages for economic loss due to negligence in the absence of physical damage to property). Fourth Circuit Sandslands C&D LLC v. County of Horry, No. 13-1134 (Dec. 3, 2013) (affirming that County waste-disposal ordinance does not violate Dormant Commerce or...

Posted 05 Dec 2013 in Case Notes
If a public employee reports departmental-safety concerns to his supervisor, and the employee is removed from duty for raising those concerns, does the employee have a viable First Amendment retaliation claim?Policecar In Hagen v. City of Eugene, No. 12-35492 (Dec. 3, 2013), the Ninth Circuit ruled that a public employee did not have a viable First Amendment claim under the particular circumstances there. The court ruled that, viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the employee, he was speaking as a public employee, not a private citizen. The case involved a City police officer, Brian Hagen, who noticed that members of his SWAT team were often firing their weapons accidentally and negigently. Hagen tried to make his concerns about the team "as public as possible" by sending e-mails and raising the issue  in meetings. Eventually, Hagen was removed from the K-9 team. Hagen claimed that the City and senior officers had retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights.