State of Justice: May Cases in the Courts
Cases in the Courts
Civil Liability
Arizona
Sanchez-Ravuelta, et al. v. Yavapai, et al.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the state’s Department of Liquor Licenses and Control is not liable for its failure to close a bar with a history of over-serving patrons, holding that permissive language in state statutes gives the board broad discretion to issue, suspend, and revoke liquor licenses but does not require the board to take any of those actions. The court’s opinion released the board from liability in a lawsuit brought against it by victims of an accident caused by a patron who drove away from the bar with a blood-alcohol content over four times the state’s legal limit.
California
New England Country Foods, LLC v. VanLaw Food Products, Inc.
In response to a request made by a federal appeals court to clarify state law, the California Supreme Court ruled that parties entering into contracts that include indemnification clauses are precluded by state law and public policy from limiting their liability for gross negligence or willful conduct. The opinion cited legal precedent that previously held contractual limitation of liability clauses may indemnify parties from liability for ordinary negligence, but not gross negligence or willful conduct.
Indiana
Isgrig v. Trustees of Indiana University
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Indiana University can be held liable for an injury that resulted from a window falling out of the wall onto a student. After the student brought a negligence claim against the university, the university argued it could not determine a cause for the window falling out of the wall and thus should not be held liable for the student’s injuries since no cause could be determined. The court disagreed, ruling that the student’s case could move forward and remanded the suit back to a lower court for further proceedings.
Iowa
Mehmedovic, et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al.
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the families of workers employed by Tyson Foods who died of complications from COVID-19 in the early days of the pandemic can continue their lawsuit alleging gross negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation against Tyson executives and managers. The families have alleged that the meatpacker willfully failed to respond adequately to the COVID-19 outbreak at its Waterloo plant. They further alleged the working conditions sickened more than 1,000 workers and killed at least seven, in what became one of the largest workplace COVID-19 outbreaks in the nation. Lower courts had limited the families’ claims to the state workers’ compensation system, but the supreme court overturned those rulings, allowing the families to continue their claims against several current and former Tyson officials.
New Mexico
Lerma v. State
The New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously held that the state’s Whistleblower Protection Act requires that disclosures about improper or illegal actions by public employers must benefit the public for employees making disclosures to qualify for protections afforded by the act. The court’s opinion, which arose from a case brought by a corrections officer who reported retaliation after he resisted pressure to violate prison protocols, remanded the case back to the state court of appeals for further proceedings in accordance with its interpretation of the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Tennessee
Jones, et al. v. Life Care Center of Tullahoma
The Tennessee Supreme Court determined that an invasion of privacy lawsuit against a nursing home facility can continue despite the death of the plaintiff. The court determined that an exception to a state law permitting tort lawsuits to continue after a plaintiff’s death, unless the suit involves harm to a person, was applicable in a case involving a nursing home resident. The resident had been recorded on video when an employee assisting with her bath answered a video call. The ruling stated that the resident retained rights to privacy and consent even posthumously.
Civil Liberties
Alaska
In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Lila B.
The Alaska Supreme Court unanimously ruled that staff at the state-run Alaska Psychiatric Institute violated the constitutional rights of a patient when they treated her head lice by shaving her head against her will after she asserted her religious beliefs would be violated if they touched her hair to treat the lice. The court ruled the facility had many other treatment options available that were less invasive than shaving the patient’s head and should have been required by a lower court to show that shaving the patient’s head was the least restrictive treatment option available before proceeding with the treatment.
Indiana
J.F. v. St. Vincent Hospital and Health Care Center, Inc.
The Indiana Supreme Court held that individuals who have been temporarily committed in civil mental health claims may continue to appeal their commitments after they have expired if any collateral consequences may still occur, ruling that individuals who have been committed for up to 90 days may pursue their cases on the merits even after they have been released. The ruling clarified inconsistent lower court decisions about post-expiration challenges to commitment orders, requiring courts to consider claims unless the appellant cannot show ongoing, harmful, collateral consequences from their commitment.
Minnesota
State v. Plancarte
The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed a criminal complaint against a woman who had been arrested and charged with indecent exposure after she exposed her breasts in a convenience store parking lot. The court held that lewd behavior in Minnesota’s penal statutes refers to conduct of a sexual nature and ruled that exposing one’s breasts in the absence of explicit sexual conduct does not constitute lewd behavior as defined by the statutes.
Criminal Justice
Maine
Carney, et al. v. Hancock County, et al.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the family of a woman who attempted suicide while detained in the county and later was taken off life support in jail may proceed with a case brought against county officials. The officials argued they were immune from liability due to their status as public officials and asked a lower court to dismiss the claim and appealed that court’s denial of their motion. The high court affirmed the lower court’s conclusions and allowed the case to proceed.
Utah
Carter v. State
The Utah Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a lower court opinion that vacated the conviction and death sentence of a man whose constitutional rights the court ruled were violated when prosecutors committed intentional misconduct by withholding exculpatory evidence, coercing police, and failing to correct false testimony proffered during the man’s trial. The high court affirmed the lower court’s ruling ordering prosecutors to schedule a new trial for the man, who was convicted despite no physical evidence linking him to the crime and who has been incarcerated for more than 40 years.
Election Integrity
Arizona
Hoffman v. Ward
The Arizona Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by a state senator indicted on charges of fraud against a judge who was part of a panel hearing the case. The state senator argued that the judge could not be impartial because the judge made two $250 contributions to Arizona Attorney General Kris Hayes. The Attorney General brought charges against the state senator and 10 other Republicans associated with their efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Arizona. The Arizona Supreme Court dismissal will allow the fraud case against the senator and his associates to continue.
Environmental Protections
Colorado
County Commissioners of Boulder County and City of Boulder v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et. al
The City of Boulder and Boulder County alleged that Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy knowingly and willfully furthered the harmful effects of climate change through fossil fuel emissions, violating the federal Clean Air Act. All of the justices agreed the suit should continue; however, there was a split on the proper jurisdiction. In a 5-2 split, the majority ruled that the case could continue in state court, but the minority wrote that they believed the suit belonged in federal court.
State and Local Authority
Nevada
City of Reno v. Scenic Nevada, Inc.
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that a nonprofit organization that aims to preserve natural scenery across Nevada lacked standing to challenge a series of signs approved by the City of Reno for construction in Reno’s Neon Line District. The group’s lawsuit claimed the three signs violated various clauses of the city’s municipal code. The court ruled that each of the signs was properly classified as area identification signs, rather than billboards. Because the signs were not billboards and thus were exempt from the city code, the court ruled the scenic preservation group lacked standing to challenge their construction.
New York
Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc., et al. v. City of New York, et al.
The New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, dismissed a lawsuit that sought to challenge New York City’s implementation of a local law that aimed to address the effects of climate change on the city’s inhabitants by requiring large buildings to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Owners of impacted buildings sued the city, alleging that the local law was unenforceable because it was preempted by a state law passed the same year. The high court ruled that the state law included language that allows local municipalities to enforce more stringent regulations and dismissed the building owners’ suit.
Texas
Elliott, et al. v. City of College Station, et al.
The Texas Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that dismissed a case filed against the City of College Station brought by two Brazo County residents who reside outside College Station’s city limits but within its extraterritorial jurisdiction. The residents alleged that the city’s jurisdictional structure, which makes them subject to city ordinances but precludes them from voting in city elections or receiving city services, was unconstitutional. Lower courts had agreed with the city’s contention that the issue is inherently political in nature and not subject to the purview of the judicial branch and dismissed the residents’ claim. The state’s highest court for civil matters disagreed and remanded the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings.
Wisconsin
Lemieux, et al. v. Evers, et al.
In a complaint brought by a business group against the governor of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the governor’s power to use his partial veto authority to change portions of the state’s budget, even when the changes completely altered the original intent and meaning of the language sent to the governor by the state assembly. The court ruled the governor acted legally when he struck part of a sentence in the state budget that was originally intended to be a school-funding increase to last two years. Gov. Evers’s (D) partial veto caused the funding increase to instead remain in effect for more than 400 years. The court ruled that the governor’s partial veto power is not limited by how much a partial veto may affect or change policy and dismissed the complaint.
Wyoming
Teton County Board of County Commissioners v. State of Wyoming, Board of Land Commissioners
The Wyoming Supreme Court held that a county may not enforce its land use regulations on land owned by the state, ruling that a luxury “glamping” business may continue to operate on state-owned land near Teton Village on a state-issued temporary use permit. After the Department of Environmental Quality issued a notice of violation to the business for allowing sewage to contaminate a nearby creek, the county attempted to enforce its fire, water, and electrical codes, and the state filed a lawsuit to stop the county from interfering with the glamp ground’s operation. The court’s ruling affirmed the state’s assertion that its code enforcement authority preempts the county’s authority and will allow the glamping business to continue operating over the county’s objections.
Immigration
New Mexico
Ramirez v. Marsh
The New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously ruled that prosecutors are not required to divulge applications for U and T visas filed by alleged crime victims as part of the discovery process. The court ruled that requiring prosecutors to share such applications, which allow alleged victims who lack legal residency status to remain in the U.S. after they reported crimes and while they testify against perpetrators, would have a chilling effect on the willingness of immigrants to report crimes and cooperate with law enforcement. The court’s written opinion provided legal reasoning for a 2024 order from the court that had required judges in two counties to return or destroy visa application materials that prosecutors had provided to defense teams.
Firearm Restrictions
Kansas
Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that gun manufacturers and retailers are immune from liability in a lawsuit that stemmed from the accidental discharge of a handgun. The court ruled that the gun’s manufacturer and seller are immune from liability under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which limits liability for manufacturers or sellers when a user criminally misuses a firearm. The court ruled that the law was applied correctly in the case because although the owner of the gun didn’t intend to discharge the gun while in a vehicle that was stopped at a stoplight on a public street, he did intend to pull the trigger, which violated a Kansas law that prohibits the discharge of a firearm on a public road.
Washington
State v. Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc.
The Washington Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on high-capacity magazines, holding that such magazines are not “arms” as defined by the Second Amendment and that regulating their sale and use does not violate Second Amendment protections on the right to bear arms. The court ruled that legislation passed last year to restrict the sale and use of high-capacity magazines in Washington may remain in effect and affirmed a lower court order that instructed a gun seller to stop selling magazines containing more than 10 rounds.
LGBTQ+ Protections
Ohio
Moe v. Yost
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender children may remain in effect while a challenge to a state law banning such care is litigated in lower courts. The law went into effect last year and was challenged by parents whose children were blocked from accessing care by the ban. The plaintiff parents argued that the law violated their constitutional rights to make decisions they deem in the best interest of their children and their children’s rights to bodily autonomy. The law also prohibits trans athletes from competing on school sports teams that align with their gender identity.
Police Accountability
Texas
City of Killeen–Killeen Police Department v. Aamir Terry
The Texas Supreme Court ruled that a police officer who struck a vehicle with his police cruiser while responding to a 911 call cannot be held liable for the driver’s injuries unless the driver can prove the officer violated emergency response laws. Lower courts rejected the city’s argument that it should be immune from liability, but the high court overturned those rulings, finding that the injured driver must prove the officer’s conduct went beyond recklessness and violated the law to hold the officer liable for his injuries.
Press Freedoms
Montana
Choteau Acantha v. Gianforte
The Montana Supreme Court ruled that a state judicial appointment council appointed by the governor violated state open meetings laws by closing meetings associated with appointing a district court judge in 2023. The court sided with two newspapers that filed lawsuits against the governor following the council’s decision to close its meetings to the public and withhold information about how it decided to choose a slate of finalists for the vacancy.
Reproductive Freedoms
Michigan
Markiewicz v. Markiewicz
The Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear a dispute over how a frozen fertilized embryo should be used following the divorce of the couple who created the embryo. The court’s decision will leave in place an opinion from 2024 by the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling that the embryo should be awarded to the former husband, who has said he does not want to become the parent of more children and wants the embryo donated to research or destroyed, over the objections of the former wife, who wanted to have the embryo implanted in her uterus so she could attempt to have another child, which she intended to parent solo.
South Carolina
Planned Parenthood v. South Carolina
The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed a statewide abortion ban that limits access to the procedure after six weeks of gestation. Opponents of the ban argued that a 2023 state law that bans abortions after an ultrasound can detect “cardiac activity, or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart, within the gestational sac” is vague and inconsistent with medical development, and urged the court to interpret the law to ban the procedure after “repetitive rhythmic contraction” begins, often at around nine weeks gestation. Instead, the court agreed with proponents of the ban who had argued that when crafting the ban, the legislature intended the law to ban the procedure after cardiac activity can be detected by an ultrasound at around six weeks of gestation, irrespective of the appropriate medical designation of development.
Voting Rights
Iowa
League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa v. Pate, et al.
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a Hispanic organization lacks standing to challenge a law that prohibits the state from publishing voting materials in any language other than English, ruling that the organization must prove its legal rights have been directly violated by the law in order to challenge its implementation. The ruling overturned a lower court ruling that had blocked parts of the law from taking effect, allowing state officials to move forward with implementing the law.
Workers’ Rights
Indiana
Kaur v. Amazon, Inc., et al.
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that a lawsuit brought by two truck drivers against Amazon can proceed, overturning a lower court ruling that dismissed the case. The suit alleged the company was responsible for the injury to one of the drivers and the death of the other due to Amazon’s failure to install signage on its property that would make the premises adequately safe and clear for the truck drivers to perform their duties. Amazon asserted that it could not be held liable because the incidents occurred on public roadways rather than on their property. The court rejected Amazon’s argument and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.
Missouri
McCarty, et al. v. Missouri Secretary of State, et al.
The Missouri Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a law approved by voters in 2024 that expanded sick leave provisions. The law requires employers with expenditures exceeding $500,000 annually to provide employees with at least one hour of paid leave for every 30 hours worked. Employers with fewer than 15 employees are required to allow workers to earn at least 40 hours of paid leave per year, and employers with more than 15 employees are required to allow workers to earn at least 56 hours per year. Finally, the law includes a gradual increase to the state’s minimum wage. Business groups argued the law violated the state constitution’s single-subject requirements, but the court ruled the ballot proposal complied with all constitutional requirements.
Ohio
State ex. Rel. Culver v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, et al.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a steel plant was not liable for the death of a security guard who was killed when a device that dispensed pressurized nitrogen gas inside the plant began leaking, allowing nitrogen to replace oxygen inside the plant and killed the security guard by asphyxia caused by a lack of oxygen in the air he breathed. The court ruled that the state law that allowed lawsuits against companies who commit safety violations was not applicable in the case because nitrogen gas is not “toxic” as defined by the statute because it is a primary component of the atmosphere. The ruling prevented the security guard’s widow from bringing a wrongful death lawsuit against the company that operated the steel plant.
