State Court Docket Watch
-
Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc.
Fall 2015
By Chad A. Readler, Benjamin M. Flowers
When the Ohio Supreme Court interprets state class-action law, it often relies on decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting federal class-action law. But in Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., the Ohio Supreme Court reached an issue the nation’s high court has yet to, but might soon, resolve: May courts certify classes that include members who have not “suffered [an] injury as a result of the conduct challenged in the suit?” Felix held they may not, at least not in cases alleging violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.
-
North Carolina Supreme Court Upholds State-Funded Private School Scholarships For Economically Disadvantaged Students
Fall 2015
In Hart v. State,1 the North Carolina Supreme Court considered whether the Opportunity Scholarship Program (“OSP”),2 which provided state-funded scholarships to private schools for students from lower income families, violated the North Carolina Constitution. In a 4-3 decision, the Court upheld the program, focusing largely on separation of powers concerns. Because nothing in the state constitution […]
-
West Virginia Rejects Wrongful Conduct Rule on Comparative Fault Grounds
Summer 2015
In the latest round of litigation related to prescription drug abuse in Appalachia, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia declined to apply the wrongful conduct rule. The court held that the drug-addicted plaintiffs in the case were able to sue the pharmacies and doctors that provided prescription painkillers to them, despite the fact […]
-
Tennessee Trial Court Strikes Down State’s Tort Reform Act
Summer 2015
In the latest battle on the state level between the plaintiffs’ and defense bars, a Tennessee trial court has declared portions of that state’s Civil Justice Act of 2011, better known as the Tort Reform Act, unconstitutional under the Tennessee constitution. The ruling in Clark v. Cain — the first to hold the Act unconstitutional despite dozens of attempts since the law’s enactment — also conflicts with a federal decision in a separate case currently pending in the Middle District of Tennessee. If the ruling stands, its forceful interpretation of the right to a civil jury trial could call into question other judicial reforms being considered by the Tennessee legislature such as medical malpractice reform.
-
Indiana Supreme Court Upholds the Right to Work: Rebuffs an Involuntary Servitude Challenge
Spring 2015
By Luke A. Wake
With Michigan, Indiana and now Wisconsin joining the ranks of Right to Work states, it looks like the political tides may be turning against compulsory union dues—even in the Midwest, which had long been the center of union power. Yet, as demonstrated in the Indiana Supreme Court’s recent decision in Zoeller v. Sweeney, union efforts to overturn Right to Work legislation are still best fought on the political front. Indeed, legal challenges have universally failed.
-
Florida Supreme Court Finds Expectation of Privacy for Third Party Disclosures
Spring 2015
In Tracey v. Florida, the Florida Supreme Court recently determined that the Fourth Amendment requires police officers to establish probable cause and obtain a warrant in order to track the real-time location information of cellular telephone users.
-
Missouri Supreme Court Unanimously Declares Cap on Punitive Damages Unconstitutional
December 2014
By Stephen R. Clark, Kristin Weinberg
In Lewellen v. Franklin (Lewellen), the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously held that a mandatory cap on punitive damages, enacted by the Missouri Legislature in 2005 as part of its comprehensive legislative tort reform, violated a plaintiff’s right to a jury trial under the Missouri Constitution.
-
Minnesota Supreme Court Holds Municipality Cannot Revoke Right to Maintain an Existing Commercial Land Use
December 2014
By Luke A. Wake
A difficult and recurring question of municipal law is how, and when, can an existing land-use be phased-out as circumstances in the community change? […] [In] December, the Minnesota Supreme Court definitively rejected the City’s argument—holding that enactment of new zoning restrictions cannot take away the right to maintain an existing use, and that a newly adopted zoning regime cannot require a landowner to waive the right to continue with such uses.
-
New Mexico Supreme Court Eliminates Foreseeability from Tort Duty Analysis
December 2014
By Jennifer F. Thompson, Deborah J. La Fetra
On May 8, 2014, the New Mexico Supreme Court significantly altered the state’s tort law duty analysis in Rodriguez v. Del Sol Shopping Center Associates, L.P. This ruling held that foreseeability may not be considered in deciding whether a tort duty exists. Rather, courts must articulate and rely on specific public policy rationales.
-
Supreme Court of Ohio Upholds Challenge to the Application of Zoning Restrictions
December 2014
The Supreme Court of Ohio has long held that land-use restrictions may not apply retroactively to preclude the lawful use of land unless such use creates a public nuisance.