Background: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the town of Nahant may take conservation and public-access easements over part of Northeastern University’s East Point property. The ruling reverses a Superior Court judgment that had treated the taking as an impermissible attempt to stop university construction. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Dewar concluded that conservation,…
Held: The SJC first held that preserving land in a natural, scenic, and open condition for public use is a “quintessential” public purpose. Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution expressly identifies conservation of natural resources as a public purpose and protects the public’s interest in the natural, scenic, historic, and aesthetic qualities of the environment. Courts construe public…
Background: The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed two concurrent felony sentences that gave Yzail Ashton Gauna 64 days of presentence-confinement credit, rejecting his effort to apply additional jail time that had already been credited to a sentence in a separate misdemeanor probation case. The decision reinforces a practical limit on sentence credit in Wyoming: when a defendant…
Held: Chief Justice Kate M. Fox Boomgaarden, writing for a unanimous court, held that Gauna received all the credit Wyoming law required. Whether a sentence includes the proper amount of presentence credit is a question of law reviewed de novo. A sentence that omits required credit is illegal, but the governing rule changes depending on whether concurrent sentences arise in one…
Background: Shane Havens worked for CarWil, LLC and signed a noncompete agreement in exchange for continued employment. The agreement restricted related business activity for 12 months after his employment ended within CarWil’s client territory and areas the company was pursuing. After Havens left in April 2024, CarWil sued him and Elite Machining Services LLP, alleging they…
Held: The Supreme Court granted mandamus relief and held that Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2)’s 14-day deadline governs every temporary restraining order, whether entered with or without notice. Justice Parraguirre explained that the rule is textually unclear on noticed orders, but Nevada’s Rule 65 was conformed to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The court therefore followed the majority of…
Background: Jacqueline Salyers was fatally shot in 2016 by Tacoma police officer Scott Campbell while Campbell and officer Aaron Joseph were attempting to execute an arrest warrant for a passenger in Salyers’s car. Lisa Earl, suing individually and for Salyers’s family members and estate, alleged that Campbell acted negligently and that the City of Tacoma was…
Held: The Washington Supreme Court reversed. It held that negligent retention and vicarious liability are analytically distinct causes of action that may be maintained in the same case. Vicarious liability imposes indirect liability on an employer for an employee’s tort within the scope of employment, while negligent retention imposes direct liability for the employer’s own failure to remove an employee whom…
Background: The dispute arose from a court-approved settlement governing insurance agent Rafael Hatav’s debt to Clal Insurance Company Ltd. Clal’s books recorded a debt of NIS 201,666, while the settlement fixed the agreed amount at NIS 191,666 and established a procedure for objections to the debt calculation by August 31, 2021. Attorney Shalom Ben Shalosh joined…
Held: Justice Gila Kanfi-Steinitz denied Ben Shalosh’s application for leave to appeal without requesting a response. The Court explained that third-instance review is available only when a case presents a legal question extending beyond the parties’ particular dispute or when intervention is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice. This case met neither condition. The asserted issues—expansion of the pleadings and…
Background: Matthew Turner Jr., Steven Taylor, and Marcia Montgomery submitted a petition to amend Sidney’s city charter by adding a procedure for recalling elected city officials. The petition, which contained 561 signatures, sought submission of the proposal to voters at the November 3, 2026 general election.
Held: The Supreme Court of Ohio held that R.C. 731.32 did not apply. A petition to amend a city charter is neither an initiative petition nor a referendum petition, and Sidney’s charter did not incorporate the statute into its charter-amendment process. The petition’s attachment of a draft ordinance labeled an “initiative ordinance” did not transform the submission into an initiative because…
Background: Following an audit covering 2009 through 2012, URSSAF Nord-Pas-de-Calais issued Société [1] a formal demand dated November 10, 2014. It sought adjusted social security contributions arising from undeclared work, together with amounts due after cancellation of contribution reductions and exemptions previously received by the company.
Held: The Court of Cassation dismissed the company’s appeal. It held that, before all relevant provisions entered into force, contribution reductions and exemptions could not be canceled only partially based on the limited extent of the undeclared work. From January 1, 2020, the modulation mechanism applied to earlier cancellations involved in pending proceedings only upon the contributor’s express request, supported by…
Background: During an August 2026 special session, the Maryland General Assembly enacted Chapter 881, proposing a state constitutional amendment concerning congressional redistricting. The amendment would clarify that specified districting requirements apply only to General Assembly districts, authorize the legislature to grant the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction to review congressional districting plans, and provide that…
Held: The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the circuit courts erred, at least in part, by relying on executive officials’ inability to comply completely with Title VII of the Election Law Article, and also erred in concluding that Question 3 violated the state Constitution’s single-subject requirement.
Background: Arfan Munir Rai, a qualified teacher employed by Kensington Park School, was summarily dismissed after the School found that he had offered pupils private tuition outside school, sought to keep the arrangements from the School and, in some instances, proposed using alternative names for email communications. The conduct occurred while a written warning required him…
Held: The High Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the panel was entitled to receive interview records from pupils who did not attend the hearing, particularly because they were no longer in the United Kingdom, and had properly reduced the weight placed on that hearsay. The hearsay was neither the sole nor decisive evidence: Pupil A testified and was cross-examined,…
Background: Qube Re Services (No 2) Pty Limited, as trustee of the Moorebank Industrial Terminals Assets Trust, had paid Martinus Rail Pty Ltd almost $80 million under adjudication determinations made pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW). Those payments concerned work on the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal Project and were interim…
Held: Peden J held that the policy embodied in the Security of Payment Act was not the kind of fundamental public policy contemplated by s 36(1)(b)(ii). The public-policy exception applies narrowly to principles fundamental to the legal system, and its high threshold does not differ merely because the arbitration is domestic rather than international. A mandatory statute does not necessarily embody…
Background: Calvon Reginald Brown confronted Johnny Paul inside a Southeast Washington corner store after Paul entered while playing music through a portable speaker. The men argued and walked to a nearby alley, where Paul said Brown fired several shots, striking him in the hip and hitting his speaker. Paul wrestled the gun away, Brown fled, and…
Held: The Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the apparent drug-dealing footage without conducting and explaining the required analysis of whether unfair prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value. The trial court also erred by allowing the government to emphasize Brown’s supposed drug business. The appellate court did not decide whether the footage qualified as…
Background: Jackie Shayde Sedillo pleaded guilty to eight offenses arising from a crime spree and high-speed chase, including grand theft and armed robbery involving the same 2000 BMW. The charging document alleged that Sedillo took the vehicle from its owner by brandishing a pistol, dragging the owner from the vehicle, and threatening him. The district court…
Held: The Idaho Supreme Court held that, under the pleading theory governing double-jeopardy claims under Article I, section 13 of the Idaho Constitution, the charged grand theft was a lesser-included offense of the charged armed robbery. Both counts alleged the same taking of the same BMW from the same owner during a single event. Because that taking was the means by…