United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit
|
|
- Amberly Greene
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 1 of 33 Total Pages:(1 of 35) RECORD NO In The United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit SUZANNE BOREN, Guardian of the Person and Conservator of the Estate of Rockie Harold Watts, Plaintiff Appellee, v. NORTHWESTERN REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY, Defendant Appellant. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA AT HARRISONBURG BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS OF VIRGINIA, INC. AND THE VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT AND REVERSAL David P. Corrigan Jeremy D. Capps HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN Post Office Box Richmond, Virginia (804) Counsel for Amicus Curiae THE LEX GROUP 1108 East Main Street Suite 1400 Richmond, VA (804) (800) Fax: (804)
2 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 2 of 33 Total Pages:(2 of 35)
3 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 3 of 33 Total Pages:(3 of 35)
4 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 4 of 33 Total Pages:(4 of 35)
5 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 5 of 33 Total Pages:(5 of 35)
6 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 6 of 33 Total Pages:(6 of 35) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii STATEMENT OF AMICUS INTEREST... 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND MATERIAL PROCEEDINGS... 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS... 3 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 3 ARGUMENT... 4 I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE NRJA SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND IN DENYING THE MOTION TO DISMISS... 4 A. The Operation Of A Regional Jail Is A Government Function Encouraged By The General Assembly... 4 B. The Doctrine Of Sovereign Immunity Is Alive And Well In Virginia... 5 C. Virginia Law Supports A Balancing Test For Purposes Of Determining Whether The NRJA Was Entitled To Sovereign Immunity CONCLUSION REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE i
7 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 7 of 33 Total Pages:(7 of 35) CASES TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Afzall v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 273 Va. 226, 639 S.E.2d 279 (2007)... 18, 19 Bowman v. Concepcion, 283 Va. 552, 722 S.E.2d 260 (2012) Carter v. Chesterfield County Health Comm n, 259 Va. 588, 527 S.E.2d 783 (2000) Carter v. Morris, 164 F.3d 215 (4 th Cir. 1999)... 8 City of Chesapeake v. Cunningham, 268 Va. 624, 604 S.E.2d 420 (2004)... 6 City of Richmond v. Richmond Metropolitan Authority, 210 Va. 645, 172 S.E.2d 831 (1970)... 12, 13 City of Virginia Beach v. Carmichael Dev. Co., 259 Va. 493, 527 S.E.2d 778 (2000)... 6 Colby v. Boyden, 241 Va. 125, 400 S.E.2d 184 (1991) Doud v. Commonwealth, 282 Va. 317, 717 S.E.2d 124 (2011)... 7, 9 Franklin v. Richlands, 161 Va. 156, 170 S.E. 718 (1933)... 4, 8 Fry v. County of Albermarle, 86 Va. 195, 9 S.E (1889)... 7 ii
8 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 8 of 33 Total Pages:(8 of 35) Hampton Roads Sanitation District Commission v. Smith, 193 Va. 371, 68 S.E.2d 497 (1952)...passim Heckenlaible v. Virginia Regional Peninsula Jail Authority, No. 4:06cv25, 2006 WL (E.D.Va. 2006)... 10, 12 Hoggard v. City of Richmond, 172 Va. 145, 200 S.E. 610 (1939)... 8 Jean Moreau & Associates, Inc. v. Health Center Com n ex rel.county of Chesterfield, 283 Va. 128, 720 S.E.2d 105 (2012)... 8, 11, 20 Ligon v. County of Goochland, 279 Va. 312, 689 S.E.2d 666 (2010)... 6, 18, 19 Mann v. County Bd. of Arlington County, 199 Va. 169, 98 S.E.2d 515 (1957)... 7, 8 Meeks v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 798, 651 S.E.2d 637 (2007)... 9 Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301, 321 S.E.2d 657 (1984)... 6 Niese v. City of Alexandria, 264 Va. 230, 564 S.E.2d 127 (2002) , 8 Research Triangle Instite v. Board of Governors of the Fed Reserve System, 132 F.3d 985 (4 th Cir. 1997) Robertson v. Western Virginia Water Authority, Va., 752 S.E.2d 875 (2014)... 8 Seabolt v. County of Albemarle, 283 Va. 717, 724 S.E.2d 715 (2012)... 7 Slaughter v. Duling, 33 Va. Cir. 476 (City of Richmond 1972)... 8 iii
9 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 9 of 33 Total Pages:(9 of 35) Virginia Elec. and Power. Co. v. Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 217 Va. 30, 225 S.E.2d 364 (1976)... 10, 20 York County v. Peninsula Airport Com n, 235 Va. 477, 369 S.E.2d 665 (1988)... 15, 16 STATUTES Va. Code Va. Code Va. Code Va. Code , 5 Va. Code Va. Code Va. Code Va. Code Va. Code RULES Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)... 1 Fed. R. App. P. 29(g) OTHER AUTHORITIES 1 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations 128 (Smith s ed. 1940) C.J.S. Municipal Corporations, iv
10 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 10 of 33 Total Pages:(10 of 35) House Document No. 24, 1991, Appx. A Joint House Resolution No. 20, House Document No. 58, Restatement, Restitution S. J. Res. 30., Reg. Sess. (Va. 2010)(Left in Senate Rules Committee, February, 16, 2010)... 7 The Federalist No. 81 (Alexander Hamilton) (B.F. Wright ed. 1961) v
11 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 11 of 33 Total Pages:(11 of 35) STATEMENT OF AMICUS INTEREST The Local Government Attorneys of Virginia, Inc. ( LGA ) and the Virginia Municipal League ( VML ), pursuant to Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, file this amicus-curiae brief with the consent of all parties. The LGA is a non-profit corporation with a membership of more than 650 public and private attorneys in Virginia. The LGA is dedicated to promoting education, professional excellence, and collegiality, while serving as a valuable and unique resource on local government law throughout the Commonwealth. The LGA s members include attorneys who advise and represent 61 counties, 37 cities, 46 towns and several authorities and other special units of local government. The LGA provides information and support in order to assist and enable local government attorneys to perform the duties of their positions. The LGA also actively supports both legislation and litigation which are of significance to Virginia local governments. The VML is a nonprofit, nonpartisan association of political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia, formed and maintained pursuant to Va. Code for the purpose of promoting the interest and welfare of its members as may be necessary or beneficial. The VML consists of 38 cities, 162 towns, and 10 counties. The VML was established in 1905 to improve and assist local governments through legislative advocacy, research, education, and other services. 1
12 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 12 of 33 Total Pages:(12 of 35) All Virginia counties and cities, and many towns, are eligible to become members of regional jail authorities. Va. Code This appeal presents issues that are important to local governments in the performance of their governmental function of providing correctional facilities throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. This case concerns and implicates not only the rights of the parties to the case, but also the rights of municipalities, the important public policy issue of sovereign immunity, and the future public policy decisions involving the creation of regional jail authorities in the Commonwealth. The LGA and VML write on brief amicus curiae, because this case presents an important opportunity for this Court to articulate the bounds of the doctrine of sovereign immunity in its application to local governmental entities. The LGA and VML affirm that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and that no person other than amicus, its members, and its counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. However, counsel for Appellant is a member of the LGA. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The LGA and VML adopt Appellant s Statement of the Issues Presented for Review. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND MATERIAL PROCEEDINGS The LGA and VML adopt Appellant s Statement of the Case. 2
13 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 13 of 33 Total Pages:(13 of 35) STATEMENT OF FACTS The LGA and VML adopt Appellant s Statement of Facts. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The district court erred in denying Northwestern Regional Jail Authority ( NRJA ) sovereign immunity from the tort claims that arose out of the operation of the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center. There is no dispute that the operation of a jail is a governmental function. Moreover, there is no dispute that the NRJA is a governmental entity that was created for the sole purpose of constructing and operating a jail. The district court misconstrued Virginia law and applied an overly rigid test for determining whether the NRJA was entitled to sovereign immunity. By denying NRJA sovereign immunity, the district court has created an anomaly where every governmental unit operating a jail in Virginia is entitled to sovereign immunity with the exception of a regional jail authority. This result is contrary to the intent of the Virginia General Assembly in enacting legislation which permits local governments to join together to form a regional jail authority for cost and efficiency purposes. The result reached by the district court effectively abrogates well-established common law sovereign immunity for local governments. When considering whether the NRJA is entitled to sovereign immunity while performing a classic governmental function of 3
14 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 14 of 33 Total Pages:(14 of 35) operating a jail, this Court should apply the balancing approach recognized by the Supreme Court of Virginia. ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE NRJA SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND IN DENYING THE MOTION TO DISMISS. A. The Operation Of A Regional Jail Is A Governmental Function Encouraged By The General Assembly. The operation of a jail is an essential and core governmental function. Franklin v. Richlands, 161 Va. 156, 158, 170 S.E. 718, 719 (1933). As part of their governmental obligations, counties and cities must construct and operate jail facilities. In fact, courts have the ability to order these localities to construct a correctional facility. Virginia Code The Virginia General Assembly, concerned with jail overcrowding and the increasing costs associated with constructing and operating correctional facilities, provided an economic incentive for the construction of regional jails. House Document No. 24, 1991, Appx. A 1 When it shall appear to the circuit court of any county or city that there is no jail therein or that the jail of such county or city is insecure, out of repair or otherwise inadequate, it shall be the duty of such court to award a rule in the name of the Commonwealth against the governing body of the county or city to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding the governing body to erect a jail for the county or city, or to cause the existing jail of such county or city to be made secure, put in good repair, or rendered otherwise adequate, as the case may be. Va. Code
15 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 15 of 33 Total Pages:(15 of 35) Joint House Resolution No. 20, To reduce the costs and expenses associated with constructing and operating a jail facility, the Virginia General Assembly encouraged localities to pool their resources for the construction and operation of these facilities. House Document No. 58, Specifically, Virginia Code provides that [T]he governing bodies of two or more counties, cities, or towns or a combination thereof may by concurrent ordinances or resolutions or by agreement, create a jail authority. Following the legislature s directive, the Counties of Clarke, Fauquier, and Frederick and the City of Winchester did just that - - created the Northwestern Regional Jail Authority. B. The Doctrine Of Sovereign Immunity Is Alive And Well In Virginia. Suzanne Boren, guardian and conservator of the Estate of Rockie Watts ( Boren ), filed a complaint against NRJA arising out of the provision of medical care to Mr. Watts while he was incarcerated at the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center. (JA 16-42). Boren asserted claims of negligence, gross 2 Whereas, statutes governing reimbursement to localities for construction, enlargement, or renovation of jails provide incentives for construction of regional jails rather than jails serving single jurisdictions... 3 While the joint subcommittee encourages localities to address these issues on a regional basis, the purpose of providing an additional financial incentives (in the form of 50 percent capital cost reimbursement) must be limited to consolidating existing jails into regional facilities or regional systems. In so doing, the highest priority must be to solve the most pressing jail overcrowding problems in our urban areas. House Document 58, 1993, p. 11. The Commonwealth should not encourage localities to avoid working out regional solutions with central cities in the name of regional cooperation. Id., p
16 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 16 of 33 Total Pages:(16 of 35) negligence and willful and wanton conduct against NRJA. (JA 27-32). Although the NRJA moved to dismiss the Complaint on sovereign immunity grounds, the district court determined that sovereign immunity was not available to this governmental entity. (JA ). Contrary to the court s opinion, NRJA is entitled to sovereign immunity from Boren s claims. Sovereign immunity is a rule of social policy, which protects the state from burdensome interference with the performance of its governmental functions and preserves its control over state funds, property, and instrumentalities. City of Chesapeake v. Cunningham, 268 Va. 624, 633, 604 S.E.2d 420, 426 (2004) (quoting City of Virginia Beach v. Carmichael Development Co., 259 Va. 493, 499, 527 S.E.2d 778, 782 (2000)). The doctrine of sovereign immunity serves many purposes. These purposes include protecting the public purse, ensuring the uninterrupted functioning of government, eliminating any public inconvenience and danger that may result from officials being fearful to act, assuring that citizens will continue to accept public employment, and discouraging individuals from improperly threatening or initiating vexatious litigation. Ligon v. County of Goochland, 279 Va. 312, 316, 689 S.E.2d 666, 668 (2010). Accordingly, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is alive and well in Virginia, and the General Assembly does not want the doctrine abolished. Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301, 307, 321 S.E.2d 657, 660 (1984); Niese v. City of Alexandria, 264 Va. 230, 564 6
17 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 17 of 33 Total Pages:(17 of 35) S.E.2d 127 (2002). In fact, as recently as 2010, the Virginia Senate declined to authorize a study by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission of the advisability of partially abrogating the sovereign immunity of Virginia local governments, by making them subject to the Tort Claims Act. See, S. J. Res. 30., Reg. Sess. (Va. 2010) (Left in Senate Rules Committee, February, 16, 2010). At common law, the Commonwealth was immune from liability for torts committed by its officers, employees and agents... [T]hat immunity continues to apply in the absence of a legislative waiver by which the Commonwealth consents to be sued in its own courts. Doud v. Com., 282 Va. 317, 320, 717 S.E.2d 124, 125 (2011) (citations omitted). 4 Counties, as political subdivisions of the Commonwealth, enjoy the same tort immunity as does the Commonwealth. Mann v. County Bd. of Arlington County, 199 Va. 169, 175, 98 S.E.2d 515, 519 (1957); Fry v. Albemarle County, 86 Va. 195, , 9 S.E. 1004, (1889). Consequently, a county cannot be sued unless and until that right and liability be conferred by law. Mann, 199 Va. at 174; Seabolt v. County of Albemarle, 283 Va. 717, 724 S.E.2d 715 (2012). Accordingly, it is clearly established in Virginia that 4 In Doud, the Court recognized that with the enactment of the Virginia Tort Claims Act the Commonwealth has waived its sovereign immunity for tort claims in the circumstances to which the statute applies, but the waiver is a limited one. Doud, 282 Va. at 320. However, the Virginia Tort Claims Act, by its express terms, excludes counties and cities from its limited abrogation of immunity. Code
18 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 18 of 33 Total Pages:(18 of 35) the County of Clarke, County of Fauquier and County of Frederick are entitled to sovereign immunity for claims sounding in tort. Similarly, the City of Winchester is also entitled to sovereign immunity for negligence claims arising out of the exercise of governmental functions. See e.g., Robertson v. Western Virginia Water Authority, Va., 752 S.E.2d 875 (2014); Jean Moreau & Associates, Inc. v. Health Center Com n ex rel. County of Chesterfield, 283 Va. 128, , 720 S.E.2d 105, (2012); Niese, 264 Va When a governmental function is involved, a city is not liable for personal injuries caused by the negligence of the city s officers, agents or employees. Mann, 199 Va. at 174; Niese, 264 Va. at 239. Additionally, the law is settled that a city is immune from liability while performing a governmental function even for acts of gross negligence or intentional torts on the part of its employees. Niese, 264 Va. at (holding that municipality is immune from the intentional torts committed by its police officer); Carter v. Morris, 164 F.3d 215, 221 (4 th Cir. 1999). The Supreme Court of Virginia has held that the operation of a jail is a purely governmental function. As such, counties and cities have equal sovereign immunity from claims of injuries to an inmate confined in the jail. Franklin, 161 Va. at 158; see also, Hoggard v. City of Richmond, 172 Va. 145, 200 S.E. 610 (1939); Slaughter v. Duling, 33 Va. Cir. 476 (City of Richmond 1972) (holding 8
19 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 19 of 33 Total Pages:(19 of 35) City is immune from allegations of negligence in operation of City Jail). Under these well-established principles of sovereign immunity, there is no dispute that Boren could not sue the Counties of Clark, Fauquier or Frederick, or the City of Winchester for the allegations set forth in her Complaint, because each of these entities would be entitled to sovereign immunity. Similarly, a sheriff is entitled to sovereign immunity in the operation of a jail in Virginia. Doud, 282 Va Except to the limited extent it is abrogated by the Tort Claims Act, the Commonwealth likewise has sovereign immunity from claims arising out of the operation of a correctional facility. Despite the fact that each of these governmental entities is entitled to sovereign immunity for the operation of a jail, the district court held that a regional jail authority is not entitled to the same immunity. The district court s opinion creates a dichotomy in sovereign immunity law and local government liability where the only entity not entitled to sovereign immunity for the operation of a jail facility is a regional jail authority. This is an anomaly that the General Assembly never intended to create through its legislation to encourage localities to create regional jail authorities, and was reached through an overly strict interpretation of Virginia case law. See e.g., Meeks v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 798, 802, 651 S.E.2d 637, 639 (2007) ( a statute should never be construed in a way that leads to absurd results. ); Bowman v. Concepcion, 283 Va. 552, 564, 722 9
20 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 20 of 33 Total Pages:(20 of 35) S.E.2d 260, 267 (2012) (holding we do not believe that the legislature could have intended such a result where the interpretation would effectively defeat the purpose of the code sections at issue as statutes should never be construed in a way that leads to absurd results. ) Governmental entities entitled to the status of municipal corporations are protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity from tort liability while performing a governmental function. Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 217 Va. 30, 33, 225 S.E.2d 364, 367 (1976). The District Court erred when it held that NRJA should not be treated as a municipal corporation for purposes of sovereign immunity. (JA 235, 237). The Court based its decision on the determination that the NRJA did not possess all six attributes of a municipal corporation. (JA 237). 5 The Court relied on Heckenlaible v. Virginia Regional Peninsula Jail Authority, No. 4:06cv25, 2006 WL , at *1 (E.D.Va. 2006) in reaching its decision. This inflexible approach is contrary to Virginia law and has effectively stripped localities that 5 The six attributes identified include: (1) Creation as a body corporate and politic and as a political subdivision of the Commonwealth; (2) Creation to serve a public purpose; (3) Power to have a common seal, to sue and be sued, to enter into contracts, to acquire, hold and dispose of its revenue, personal and real property; (4) Possession of the power of eminent domain; (5) Power to borrow money and issue bonds which are tax exempt, with interest on such bonds enjoying the same status under tax laws as the interest on bonds of other political subdivisions of the state; (6) Management of the corporation vested in a board of directors or a commission. 10
21 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 21 of 33 Total Pages:(21 of 35) chose to create a regional jail authority of sovereign immunity in the operation of a governmental function. This decision is a disincentive for local governments to participate in regional jail facilities, and creates a result that is contrary to the intent of the legislature. 6 C. Virginia Law Supports A Balancing Test For Purposes Of Determining Whether The NRJA Was Entitled To Sovereign Immunity. In determining whether NRJA was entitled to sovereign immunity, the district court focused its decision on whether NRJA had six attributes that are essential to viability as a municipal corporation. (JA 236). This focus strictly construes Virginia law on sovereign immunity unnecessarily. The Supreme Court of Virginia has held that instrumentalities of a municipality do not need to be a municipal corporation to receive immunity. Instead, an instrumentality only needs to be entitled to the status of a municipal corporation to receive immunity. Jean Moreau & Assoc., Inc., 283 Va. at ( There is no dispute that HCC is entitled to the status of a municipal corporation, and we have previously treated it as such. ) (emphasis added). As the NRJA rightly points out in its opening brief, the Supreme Court of Virginia has never held that a governmental entity must have all six attributes 6 In fact, having closed their local jails and incurring bond indebtedness through regional jail authorities to build regional jail facilities, most localities do not have the option of withdrawing from a regional jail authority to avoid the liability the district court has imposed upon them. 11
22 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 22 of 33 Total Pages:(22 of 35) identified in Heckenlaible in order to be entitled to the status of a municipal corporation for purposes of sovereign immunity. Heckenlaible seized on language in City of Richmond v. Richmond Metropolitan Authority, 210 Va. 645, 172 S.E.2d 831 (1970) to create an exacting standard for determining whether a governmental entity is eligible for sovereign immunity that was never intended by the Supreme Court of Virginia. Heckenlaible interpreted Richmond Metropolitan Authority for the proposition that a government entity must have all six essential attributes of a municipal corporation identified in the opinion in order to enjoy sovereign immunity. Richmond Metropolitan Authority, however, was not concerned with sovereign immunity. Instead, it was a tax case where the issue was whether the Richmond Metropolitan Authority was a municipal corporation so as to be a municipality providing tax relief to taxpayers under the Proration Act (Va. Code ). As such, the social policy considerations for determining whether the Metropolitan Authority should be treated as a municipal corporation were entirely different than whether a government entity is entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity. Moreover, a close examination of the Richmond Metropolitan Authority opinion reveals that the Supreme Court of Virginia was not mandating that all government entities must have the specific six attributes espoused therein in order 12
23 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 23 of 33 Total Pages:(23 of 35) to enjoy municipal corporate status for every purpose. Instead, the Supreme Court in characterizing its previous opinion in Hampton Roads Sanitation Dist. Commission v. Smith, 193 Va. 371, 376, 68 S.E.2d 497, 500 (1952), stated: This court then went on to list those attributes of a municipal corporation which we deemed essential to viability as a municipal corporation in that instance. Richmond Metropolitan Authority, 210 Va. at 647. The Court then held that because the Richmond Metropolitan Authority had the same characteristics as in Hampton Roads, it was a municipal corporation for purposes of the proration act. The Supreme Court of Virginia did not hold that the six attributes identified in Hampton Roads must be met in every case in order for an entity to be entitled to municipal corporate status. The framework for why the NRJA is entitled to sovereign immunity is set out in the Hampton Roads Sanitation District case. There, in considering whether the commission was entitled to collect a toll, the Court explained the complexities of determining whether local governmental subdivisions are entitled to the status of municipal corporations. There is considerable lack of harmony in the decisions from various States concerning which local governmental subdivisions are included within the term municipal corporation. Some of these entities are almost perfect in their organization and can scarcely be distinguished from municipal corporations proper; others are hardly worthy of the designation corporation as they are imperfectly organized and have very few powers. Between these two clearly-differentiated extremes, there are a large number of governmental agencies variously 13
24 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 24 of 33 Total Pages:(24 of 35) described as political, public, civil, or otherwise, including drainage districts, fire districts, irrigation districts, sanitary districts, and so on ad infinitum. These organizations are sometimes declared by statute to be corporations, and court decisions and text-writers often recognize them as a peculiar class of public institutions and generally refer to them as quasi-corporations, quasi-municipal corporations, or quasi-municipalities. Such entities are not municipal corporations in the strict sense of the term, but where it appears that the legislature intended that they should be so construed, the designation municipal corporation is often used in a broad or generic sense to include those quasi-municipal corporations which are created to perform an essentially public service. See 1 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations 128 (Smith s ed. 1940); Restatement, Restitution 75; 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations 5. Hampton Roads Sanitation District, 193 Va. at 374. (emphasis added). The Court then explained, that these apparent contradictions and conflicts can be resolved by a concentration on two basic factors. The first is, how many attributes of a municipal corporation does the entity in dispute possess? The second is, in the light of this initial consideration, what is the particular purpose for which it is sought to determine whether or not a municipal corporation is present? Id., at 376 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the appropriate test for considering whether a governmental entity is entitled to the status of a municipal corporation is not the rigid test employed by the district court, but a balancing test that considers the attributes possessed by the entity and the particular reason the entity was created and seeking municipal status. 14
25 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 25 of 33 Total Pages:(25 of 35) Contrary to the decision by the district court, the Supreme Court of Virginia did not hold that a governmental entity (the commission) must possess all six attributes that were identified in Hampton Roads. Instead, the Hampton Roads Court emphasized: While it is true that the more attributes of a municipal corporation an agency has the more likely it is to be treated as a municipal corporation, the final decision rests on the specific issue of each case. Our analysis of the plethora of decisions on this subject is that a commission, such as that before us, may be held to be a municipal corporation for some purposes, but not for others. Id., at 377. If the Supreme Court of Virginia had intended to employ a rigid six factor test adopted by the district court, it simply would have done so by announcing that government entities must have those six specific attributes in order to qualify for municipal corporate status. Instead, the Court declined to do so and adopted a test that weighs the number of attributes held by the governmental entity with the purpose for which it was created and seeks municipal status. The Supreme Court of Virginia confirmed this interpretation of Hampton Roads in York County v. Peninsula Airport Com n, 235 Va. 477, 369 S.E.2d 665 (1988). In York County, another tax case, the Court again reiterated that while certain commissions and authorities are not municipal corporations in the strict sense of the term, they should nonetheless be recognized as having the status of a municipal corporation, where it appears that the legislature intended that they 15
26 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 26 of 33 Total Pages:(26 of 35) should be so construed. Id., at 480. After acknowledging the standard set out in Hampton Roads 7, the Court stated we have identified six attributes pertinent to that inquiry. Id. (emphasis added). When the County asserted that the Commission should not be given the status of a municipal corporation, because the enabling legislation authorizing the creation of the commission did not expressly label the commission as a political subdivision, the Court rejected this rigid approach. Id., at 481 ( The County asks us to elevate form over substance. We decline to do so ). Instead, the Court looked to the original act and enabling act and determined that the General Assembly meant for PAC to occupy the status of a political subdivision. Id. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court emphasized in a footnote that a governmental entity should be entitled to the status of a municipal corporation if it possesses enough of the essential attributes. Id., at 481 n.1 (emphasis added). As NRJA aptly explains in its brief, the enabling language authorizing the creation of a regional jail authority establishes that regional jail authorities like NRJA possesses enough of the attributes of a municipal corporation to be entitled to the status of municipal corporation. (Doc. 37, p ). Specifically, a regional jail authority is created to serve a public purpose; has the power to have a common 7 York County reiterated that in determining municipal corporate status it should consider how many attributes of a municipal corporation does the entity possess. Id., at
27 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 27 of 33 Total Pages:(27 of 35) seal, to sue and be sued, to enter into contracts, to acquire, hold and dispose of its revenue, personal and real property; can borrow money and issue bonds which are tax exempt; and its management is vested in a board of directors. See, Va. Code , , While the enabling legislation does not specifically state that a regional jail authority is a political subdivision, the enabling legislation does identify regional jail authorities as instrumentalities of the government. Additionally, the General Assembly has exempted regional jail authorities from taxes because their operation and maintenance of correctional facilities constitutes the performance of an essential governmental function. This further supports its municipal corporation status. See, Va. Code Moreover, as pointed out by the NRJA, the power of eminent domain is not necessary to affect the authority s public purpose, because the legislature specifically granted regional jail authorities the right to acquire public lands from the Commonwealth, any agencies of the Commonwealth or its member jurisdictions. Va. Code , This statute lists all of the powers that a regional jail authority possesses, in addition to the attributes set out in Hampton Roads. 9 The exercise of the powers granted by this article shall be in all respects for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth, for the increase of their commerce, and for the promotion of their safety, health, welfare, convenience, and prosperity, and as the operation and maintenance of the project by an authority created pursuant to this article will constitute the performance of essential governmental functions, the authority shall not be required to pay any taxes or assessments Va. Code
28 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 28 of 33 Total Pages:(28 of 35) When considering the number of attributes possessed by regional jail authorities in their totality with the public purpose for which regional jail authorities were created, it becomes apparent that NRJA should be given the status of a municipal corporation for purposes of sovereign immunity. As set out above, local governments have an obligation to establish and operate jails. In fact, it is a core governmental obligation. In an effort to ease the financial burden on these localities, as well as the Commonwealth, the General Assembly enacted legislation that permitted local governments to join together to create regional jail authorities to operate their detention centers. There is certainly no doubt about the important public purpose served in constructing and operating these detention centers. Moreover, the fact that the entities authorized to create a regional jail authority are entitled to sovereign immunity themselves in operating a jail is further support for the conclusion that the General Assembly intended a regional jail authority to have the status of a municipal corporation for sovereign immunity purposes. Exposing a regional jail authority to liability for the operation of a jail is inconsistent with the legislative intent to reduce the costs of constructing and operating detention centers. In that regard, it is well-recognized that only the legislature acting in its policy making capacity can abrogate sovereign immunity. Ligon, 279 Va. at 317; Afzall ex rel. Afzall v. Com., 273 Va. 226, 230, 639 S.E.2d 279, 281 (2007). When 18
29 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 29 of 33 Total Pages:(29 of 35) doing so, legislative abrogation of the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity must be explicit and will not be found by implication. Colby v. Boyden, 241 Va. 125, 132, 400 S.E.2d 184, 188 (1991). A waiver of immunity cannot be implied from general statutory language but must be explicitly and expressly announced in the statute. Afzall, 273 Va. at 230. In reviewing a statute, courts will conclude that the General Assembly has taken action abrogating the Commonwealth s sovereign immunity only when the statutory language has explicitly and expressly announced such a waiver. Ligon, 279 Va. at 317. There is no indication in the enabling legislation or legislative history, let alone an explicit or express announcement that the General Assembly intended to abrogate sovereign immunity in the operation of a regional jail. Indeed, as this Court has observed: The jealous protection of the sovereign from suit is deeply rooted in the common law and has been considered a part of the plan of our Constitution since before its ratification. In arguing for the Constitution s organization of the judicial branch, Alexander Hamilton wrote that it is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent. Research Triangle Institute v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 132 F.3d 985, 987 (4 th Cir. 1997) (footnotes omitted) (quoting The Federalist No. 81, at 511 (Alexander Hamilton) (B.F. Wright ed. 1961)). In fact, the Supreme Court of Virginia has recognized that for purposes of uniformity in determining tort immunity, an authority should be held to occupy 19
30 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 30 of 33 Total Pages:(30 of 35) the same status as the municipality which brings it into existence and oversees its activities. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 217 Va. at 33; Jean Moreau & Assoc., Inc., 283 Va. at ; Carter v. Chesterfield County Health Comm n, 259 Va. 588, 527 S.E.2d 783 (2000) (noting that Hampton Redevelopment did not support contention that entities such as the Commission should be afforded less protection than municipalities in matters of tort immunity, and the Commission was entitled to protection from tort liability, because its operation of a nursing home was a governmental function.) In sum, it is undisputed that the allegations in the Complaint arise out of NRJA s performance of a governmental function in the operation of the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center. In balancing the municipal attributes attributed to regional jail authorities through the legislature s enabling legislation, with the very purpose for which the General Assembly permitted the creation of regional jail authorities, NRJA should be treated as a municipal corporation for purposes of sovereign immunity. Therefore, the NRJA is entitled to sovereign immunity from Boren s Complaint. The District Court erred in not utilizing this balancing approach to NRJA s assertion of sovereign immunity, and in denying NRJA s Motion to Dismiss. 20
31 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 31 of 33 Total Pages:(31 of 35) CONCLUSION The LGA and VML request that this Court reverse the Order of the district court denying NRJA sovereign immunity and its motion to dismiss, dismiss the Plaintiff s case in its entirety against NRJA, and award NRJA such other and further relief as this Court deems just. REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The issues presented involve a complex analysis of sovereign immunity under Virginia law where there appears to be no controlling precedent on point. For that reason, pursuant to Rule 29(g), oral argument is respectfully requested. Local Government Attorneys of Virginia, Inc. Virginia Municipal League By: Counsel /s/ Jeremy D. Capps David P. Corrigan (VSB No ) Jeremy D. Capps (VSB No ) Harman, Claytor, Corrigan & Wellman P. O. Box Richmond, VA Phone Fax dcorrigan@hccw.com jcapps@hccw.com Counsel for Local Government Attorneys of Virginia, Inc. and The Virginia Municipal League 21
32 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 32 of 33 Total Pages:(32 of 35) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 28.1(e)(2) or 32(a)(7)(B) because: [ X ] this brief contains [5,029] words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), or [ ] this brief uses a monospaced typeface and contains [state the number of] lines of text, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). 2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because: [ X ] this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using [Microsoft Word 2007] in [14pt Times New Roman]; or [ ] this brief has been prepared in a monospaced typeface using [state name and version of word processing program] with [state number of characters per inch and name of type style]. Dated: March 21, 2014 /s/ Jeremy D. Capps Counsel for Amicus Curiae
33 Appeal: Doc: 42-1 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 33 of 33 Total Pages:(33 of 35) CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 21 st day of March, 2014, I caused this Brief of Amicus Curiae to be filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send notice of such filing to the following registered CM/ECF users: Rosalie Fessier TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, PC 25 North Central Avenue P. O. Box 108 Staunton, VA (540) Counsel for Appellant Elliott M. Buckner CANTOR STONEBURNER FORD GRANA & BUCKNER 7130 Glen Forest Drive, Suite 400 Richmond, VA (804) Counsel for Appellee Mark D. Dix BUCCI & DIX Robious Road Richmond, VA (804) Counsel for Appellee I further certify that on this 21 st day of March, 2014, I caused the required copies of the Brief of Amicus Curiae to be hand filed with the Clerk of the Court. /s/ Jeremy D. Capps Counsel for Amicus Curiae
34 Appeal: Doc: 42-2 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 1 of 1 Total Pages:(34 of 35)
35 Appeal: Doc: 42-3 Filed: 03/21/2014 Pg: 1 of 1 Total Pages:(35 of 35)
VIOLET SEABOLT OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS April 20, 2012 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PRESENT: All the Justices VIOLET SEABOLT OPINION BY v. Record No. 110733 JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS April 20, 2012 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY Cheryl V. Higgins, Judge In
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER June 6, 2008 VIRGINIA SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.
Present: All the Justices PATRICK R. GRAY, ET AL. v. Record No. 071220 OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER June 6, 2008 VIRGINIA SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY
More informationPRESENT: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Russell, S.J.
PRESENT: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Russell, S.J. MELISSA DOUD, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES ELLIS PROFFITT OPINION BY v. Record No. 100285 SENIOR JUSTICE CHARLES S.
More informationROBBY NIESE OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS June 7, 2002 CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
PRESENT: All the Justices ROBBY NIESE OPINION BY v. Record No. 012007 JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS June 7, 2002 CITY OF ALEXANDRIA FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA Alfred D. Swersky, Judge
More informationCase 3:15-cv MHL Document 4 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 16
Case 3:15-cv-00349-MHL Document 4 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division JAIME S. ALFARO-GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. HENRICO
More informationCITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. March 3, 2000 CARMICHAEL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, 1 and Kinser, JJ. Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH OPINION BY v. Record No. 990919 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. March 3, 2000 CARMICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
More informationCase No , & (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Case: 13-4330 Document: 003111516193 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/24/2014 Case No. 13-4330, 13-4394 & 13-4501 (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et
More informationHOUSE BILL NO By Representatives Curtiss, Shaw, Fincher, Jim Cobb. Substituted for: Senate Bill No By Senators Burks, Lowe Finney
Public Chapter No. 1092 PUBLIC ACTS, 2008 1 PUBLIC CHAPTER NO. 1092 HOUSE BILL NO. 3958 By Representatives Curtiss, Shaw, Fincher, Jim Cobb Substituted for: Senate Bill No. 4028 By Senators Burks, Lowe
More informationTHOMAS L. ROBERTSON OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL January 10, 2014 WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY
PRESENT: All the Justices THOMAS L. ROBERTSON OPINION BY v. Record No. 130416 JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL January 10, 2014 WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE Clifford
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER AND HOLD CASES IN ABEYANCE
Case: 17-72260, 10/02/2017, ID: 10601894, DktEntry: 19, Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAFER CHEMICALS HEALTHY FAMILIES, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY March 1, 1996 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ET AL.
Present: All the Justices BARBARA HALBERSTAM v. Record No. 951044 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY March 1, 1996 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Rosemarie
More informationSupreme Court of Virginia
In The Supreme Court of Virginia RECORD NO. 121118 EMMETT H. HARMON, Chief of the James City County Police Department, et al., Appellants, v. ADAM L. EWING, Appellee. BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-3452 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal From
More informationTHREE LESSONS ABOUT LEGAL LIABILITIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTED OFFICIALS
THREE LESSONS ABOUT LEGAL LIABILITIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTED OFFICIALS Presented at the VML CONFERENCE FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS January 5, 2018 Water Street Center Charlottesville, Va. PRESENTED
More informationOPINION BY. CHIEF JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO April 18, FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Randall G.
Present: All the Justices BRIAN K. HAWTHORN v. Record No. 960261 CITY OF RICHMOND OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO April 18, 1997 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Randall G. Johnson,
More informationBoard of Claims -- Limitation on damage awards -- Hearing officers -- Asbestos related claims. (1) A Board of Claims, composed of the members
44.070 Board of Claims -- Limitation on damage awards -- Hearing officers -- Asbestos related claims. (1) A Board of Claims, composed of the members of the Crime Victims Compensation Board as hereinafter
More informationNo. 113,270¹ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. MILO A. JONES, Appellant,
No. 113,270¹ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS MILO A. JONES, Appellant, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL, Appellees. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The Eleventh Amendment
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ROBERT F. MCDONNELL,
Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 59 Filed: 03/06/2015 Pg: 1 of 18 No. 15-4019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT F. MCDONNELL, Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCase 2:17-cv MSG Document 7 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-01903-MSG Document 7 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARCIA WOODS, et al. : : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, : : v. : : NO.
More informationJoint Resolution. Joint Resolution
Joint Resolution Joint Resolution Granting consent of Congress to the State of Delaware and the State of New Jersey to enter into a compact to establish the Delaware River and Bay Authority for the development
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Virginia
In the Supreme Court of Virginia Record No. 121579 JEREMY WADE SMITH, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Appellee. APPELLANT S REPLY BRIEF Thomas H. Roberts, Esquire, VSB # 26014 tom.roberts@robertslaw.org
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 5, 2005 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 5, 2005 Session TOMMY D. LANIUS v. NASHVILLE ELECTRIC SERVICE Interlocutory appeal from the Chancery Court for Sumner County No. 2004C-96 Hon. Thomas
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, et al.
Appellate Case: 18-4013 Document: 010110021345 Date Filed: 07/11/2018 Page: 1 No. 18-4013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation,
More informationTITLE 6 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
TITLE 6 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY Contents of Title 6 Chapter 1 - Sovereign Immunity Waiver Chapter 2 - Waiver of Sovereign Immunity and Jurisdiction in Commercial Transactions Chapter 3 - Notice Ordinance Chapter
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 16-15342 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. ON APPEAL
More informationFROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Michael C. Allen, Judge Designate. a personal injury action relating to the conditions of her
PRESENT: All the Justices SUNDAY LUCAS OPINION BY v. Record No. 131064 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN April 17, 2014 C. T. WOODY, JR., ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Michael C. Allen,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. DAMIAN STINNIE, et al.,
Appeal: 17-1740 Doc: 41 Filed: 08/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 12 No. 17-1740 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DAMIAN STINNIE, et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, RICHARD HOLCOMB, in his
More informationDEON ERIC COUPLIN OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE June 9, 2005 AUBREY GILL PAYNE, JR.
PRESENT: All the Justices DEON ERIC COUPLIN OPINION BY v. Record No. 041985 JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE June 9, 2005 AUBREY GILL PAYNE, JR. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY R. Terrence Ney, Judge Deon
More informationIS GOOD CAUSE FOR VENUE DECISIONS LIMITED TO CONVENIENCE ISSUES. Gary A. Bryant Willcox & Savage P.C.
IS GOOD CAUSE FOR VENUE DECISIONS LIMITED TO CONVENIENCE ISSUES Gary A. Bryant Willcox & Savage P.C. Introduction Depending on your perspective, forum shopping is either an abuse or an art. It is no accident
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
No. 16-60104 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, v. Plaintiff- Appellant, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District
More informationNO CV. In the Court of Appeals. For the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas. Austin, Texas JAMES BOONE
NO. 03-16-00259-CV ACCEPTED 03-16-00259-CV 13047938 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/4/2016 11:45:25 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK In the Court of Appeals For the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Rel: January 11, 2019 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 11, 2016 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 11, 2016 Session TERRY JUSTIN VAUGHN v. CITY OF TULLAHOMA, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Coffee County No. 42013 Vanessa A. Jackson,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-60355 Document: 00513281865 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Summary Calendar EQUITY TRUST COMPANY, Custodian, FBO Jean K. Thoden IRA
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Case: 17-16705, 11/22/2017, ID: 10665607, DktEntry: 15, Page 1 of 20 No. 17-16705 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationLEGISLATIVE BRIEFING AND HRPDC/HRTPO/HRTAC ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND SUCCESSION PLANNING
AGENDA ITEM #7: LEGISLATIVE BRIEFING AND HRPDC/HRTPO/HRTAC ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND SUCCESSION PLANNING SUBJECT: A briefing on Hampton Roads transportation legislation HB1253/SB513, and resulting HRPDC/HRTPO/HRTAC
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA RECORD NO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA RECORD NO. 160777 ANDREA LAFFERTY, JACK DOE, a minor, by and through JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, his parents and next friends, JOHN DOE, individually, and JANE DOE, individually
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 16-2149 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 09/30/2016 No. 2016-2149 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT EVIDEO OWNERS, MAURO DIDOMENICO, individually and on behalf of all those
More informationPresent: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Millette, Mims, and McClanahan, JJ., and Lacy and Koontz, S.JJ.
Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Millette, Mims, and McClanahan, JJ., and Lacy and Koontz, S.JJ. TIMOTHY BYLER v. Record No. 112112 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY ROGER D. WOLFE, ET AL. v. Record No.
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. INTRODUCTION
By Order of the Court, Associate Judge JOSEPH N. CAMACHO 1 FOR PUBLICATION E-FILED CNMI SUPERIOR COURT E-filed: Dec 0:PM Clerk Review: N/A Filing ID: 0 Case Number: -0-CV N/A IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR
More informationRODNEY W. DORR OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS November 1, 2012 HAROLD CLARKE, DIRECTOR
Present: All the Justices RODNEY W. DORR OPINION BY v. Record No. 112131 JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS November 1, 2012 HAROLD CLARKE, DIRECTOR FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY John E. Wetsel, Jr.,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA RECORD NO MICHAEL WARE MOORE, VIRGINIA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, et al., BRIEF OF APPELLEES
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA RECORD NO. 1552-09-03 MICHAEL WARE MOORE, v. Appellant. VIRGINIA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, et al., Appellees. BRIEF OF APPELLEES WILLIAM C. MIMS Attorney General MAUREEN
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC96000 PROVIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, Respondent. PARIENTE, J. [May 24, 2001] REVISED OPINION We have for review a decision of
More informationMelanie Lee, J.D. Candidate 2017
Whether Sovereign Immunity is a Defense for States in Bankruptcy Cases 2016 Volume VIII No. 17 Whether Sovereign Immunity is a Defense for States in Bankruptcy Cases Melanie Lee, J.D. Candidate 2017 Cite
More informationO.C.G.A GEORGIA CODE Copyright 2013 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved. *** Current Through the 2013 Regular Session ***
O.C.G.A. 36-62-3 O.C.G.A. 36-62- 3 (2013) 36-62-3. Constitutional authority for chapter; finding of public purposes; tax exemption This chapter is passed pursuant to authority granted the General Assembly
More informationCase 1:15-cv JAP-CG Document 110 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:15-cv-00501-JAP-CG Document 110 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 11 Ethel B. Branch, Attorney General The Navajo Nation Paul Spruhan, Assistant Attorney General NAVAJO NATION DEPT. OF JUSTICE Post Office
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-3746 Document: 33 Filed: 07/20/2016 Page: 1 No. 16-3746 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT OHIO A PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE; NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS;
More informationCase No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and WILDTANGENT, INC.
Case No. 2010-1544 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, HULU, LLC, Defendant, and WILDTANGENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 13-1564 Document: 138 140 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2015 2013-1564 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS AKTIEBOLOG AND SCA PERSONAL CARE INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationREPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS
Case: 15-36003, 09/19/2016, ID: 10127799, DktEntry: 26, Page 1 of 14 Docket No. 15-36003 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit GLENN EAGLEMAN, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROCKY
More informationEffective: [See Text Amendments] This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Higher Education Restructuring Act of 1994."
18A:3B-1. Short title This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Higher Education Restructuring Act of 1994." 18A:3B-2. Legislative findings and declaration The Legislature finds and declares that:
More informationCHAD CRAWFORD ROBERSON OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. February 25, 2010 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 1
Present: All the Justices CHAD CRAWFORD ROBERSON OPINION BY v. Record No. 091299 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. February 25, 2010 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 1 FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA In this
More informationDupreme ourt the i niteb Dtate
~ JUL 0 3 2008 No. 07-1527 OFFICE.OF "l-t-e,"s CLERK t~ ~. I SUPREME C.,..~RT, U.S. Dupreme ourt the i niteb Dtate THE CITY OF GARLAND, TEXAS Petitioner, V. ROY DEARMORE, et al., Respondents. On Petition
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Petitioner,
Case: 15-3555 Document: 73 Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 1 No. 15-3555 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Petitioner, INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ALLIANCE,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-40238 Document: 00512980287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT STATE OF TEXAS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) Case Number: 15-40238
More information10/18/2012 9:40 PM I. INTRODUCTION
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW Andrew R. McRoberts * Steven V. Durbin ** I. INTRODUCTION This article reviews select legislation from the 2012 session of the General Assembly and opinions handed down by the Supreme
More informationCHAPTER House Bill No. 1853
CHAPTER 2000-489 House Bill No. 1853 An act relating to Palm Beach County; amending chapter 87-450, Laws of Florida, as amended, relating to the Palm Beach County Health Care Act; changing name of the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-51063 Document: 00514380489 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF
More informationcv IN THE. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. ELIZABETH A. TREMBLAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Case 14-2031, Document 43, 11/03/2014, 1361074, Page 1 of 21 14-2031-cv To Be Argued By: PROLOY K. DAS, ESQ. IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ELIZABETH A. TREMBLAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationTITLE 6 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
TITLE 6 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY Contents of Title 6 Chapter 1 - Sovereign Immunity Waiver Chapter 2 - Waiver of Sovereign Immunity and Jurisdiction in Commercial Transactions Chapter 3 - Notice Ordinance Chapter
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Rel: 12/19/2014 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (1:15-cv GBL-MSN)
Appeal: 16-1110 Doc: 20-1 Filed: 01/30/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 Total Pages:(1 of 52) FILED: January 30, 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1110 (1:15-cv-00675-GBL-MSN) NATIONAL COUNCIL
More informationCHAPTER Senate Bill No. 2668
CHAPTER 99-431 Senate Bill No. 2668 An act relating to Baker County; providing for codification of special laws regarding special districts pursuant to chapter 97-255, Laws of Florida, relating to Baker
More informationAppeal No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES, et al.,
Case: 18-35441, 10/24/2018, ID: 11059304, DktEntry: 20, Page 1 of 20 Appeal No. 18-35441 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TULALIP TRIBES,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
Case 1:11-cv-01255-AJT-JFA Document 11 Filed 12/05/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION AMY LAMARCA, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. v. No. 18-cv-0913 SMV/CG
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO SHANNON JETER, Plaintiff, v. No. 18-cv-0913 SMV/CG LEA COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY and ARTURO SALINAS, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
1 1 ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General COLLEEN M. MELODY PATRICIO A. MARQUEZ Assistant Attorneys General Seattle, WA -- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON YAKIMA NEIGHBORHOOD
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Appellants-Plaintiffs, V. CASE NO Appellee-Defendant, Appellee-Intervenor-Defendant.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al., Appellants-Plaintiffs, V. CASE NO. 15-4270 JON HUSTED, in his Official Capacity as Ohio Secretary of State, and THE
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Case: 14-1294 Document: 71 Page: 1 Filed: 10/31/2014 NO. 2014-1294 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PURDUE PHARMA L.P., THE P.F. LABORATORIES, INC., PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-06-00197-CV City of Garden Ridge, Texas, Appellant v. Curtis Ray, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C-2004-1131A,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Morales v. United States of America Doc. 10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : NICHOLAS MORALES, JR., : : Plaintiff, : v. : Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-2578-BRM-LGH
More informationAN ACT RELATING TO SANITARY PROJECTS; AMENDING THE SANITARY PROJECTS ACT WITH REGARD TO ASSOCIATIONS; AMENDING, REPEALING AND
AN ACT RELATING TO SANITARY PROJECTS; AMENDING THE SANITARY PROJECTS ACT WITH REGARD TO ASSOCIATIONS; AMENDING, REPEALING AND ENACTING SECTIONS OF THE NMSA 1978 RELATING TO FUNDING SANITARY PROJECTS; DECLARING
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA NO STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff/Appellee, PATRICK JOHN LETSCHER, Defendant/Appellant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA NO. 14-1851 ELECTRONICALLY FILED MAR 11, 2016 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. PATRICK JOHN LETSCHER, Defendant/Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE IOWA
More informationNo , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 12-35221 07/28/2014 ID: 9184291 DktEntry: 204 Page: 1 of 16 No. 12-35221, 12-35223 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STORMANS, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS RALPH S THRIFTWAY,
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS March 2, 2012 TERESA W. HAYWOOD, ET AL.
Present: All the Justices JENNIFER BING v. Record No. 102270 OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS March 2, 2012 TERESA W. HAYWOOD, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY R. Bruce Long, Judge
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 19 February 2013
NO. COA12-1022 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 19 February 2013 RICHMOND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff, v. Wake County No. 12 CVS 2414 JANET COWELL, NORTH CAROLINA STATE TREASURER, in her
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA. No (Polk County No. LACL131913) Susan Ackerman, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 16-0287 (Polk County No. LACL131913) ELECTRONICALLY FILED SEP 28, 2016 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT Susan Ackerman, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. State of Iowa, Iowa Workforce Development,
More informationFirst Assignment: Textbook pages 1-29 up to, but not including, the excerpt of the article by Charles M. Tiebout.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW Fall 2018 Syllabus Instructor: Chris Costa Telephone: (202) 724-9733 Email: chcosta99@gmail.com Class hours: 8:00 p.m. 9:50 p.m. Mondays. We will not meet on August 20, 2018. Therefore,
More informationCase: Document: Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: September 04, 2012
Case: 12-4055 Document: 006111420965 Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 1 Deborah S. Hunt Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE
More informationJERRID ALLEN and JADE ALLEN, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants, TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY a Municipal Corporation of Arizona, Defendant/Appellee.
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE JERRID ALLEN and JADE ALLEN, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY a Municipal Corporation of Arizona, Defendant/Appellee. No.
More informationORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #16-5287 Document #1720119 Filed: 02/28/2018 Page 1 of 5 ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, 2017 No. 16-5287 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
More informationCase 2:10-cv SRB Document 167 Filed 07/06/11 Page 1 of 6
Case :0-cv-0-SRB Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 JOHN J. JAKUBCZYK (AZ SBN 00 E. Thomas Rd. Suite # Phoenix, AZ 0 Tel: 0--000 NATHANIEL J. OLESON (CA SBN UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATION "D" Street, Suite
More informationNos and UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 11-55461 12/22/2011 ID: 8009906 DktEntry: 32 Page: 1 of 16 Nos. 11-55460 and 11-55461 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PACIFIC SHORES PROPERTIES, LLC et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,
More informationCase 4:15-cv AWA-DEM Document 129 Filed 11/17/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1232
Case 4:15-cv-00054-AWA-DEM Document 129 Filed 11/17/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1232 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Newport News Division GAVIN GRIMM, v. Plaintiff, GLOUCESTER
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, et al.
Appellate Case: 16-4154 Document: 01019730944 Date Filed: 12/05/2016 Page: 1 No. 16-4154 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation,
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1054 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- CURTIS SCOTT,
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: DECEMBER 29, 2010; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-001613-MR & NO. 2009-CA-002101-MR LAURA PHILLIPS APPELLANT APPEALS FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Appellate Case: 12-5136 Document: 01019118132 Date Filed: 08/30/2013 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) ) Appellee/Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 12-5134 &
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00455-CV Canario s, Inc., Appellant v. City of Austin, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-GN-13-003779,
More informationPHYSICAL THERAPY LICENSURE COMPACT
1 PHYSICAL THERAPY LICENSURE COMPACT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 SECTION 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Compact is to facilitate interstate practice of physical therapy with the goal of
More informationO.C.G.A GEORGIA CODE Copyright 2013 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved. *** Current Through the 2013 Regular Session ***
O.C.G.A. 36-63-1 O.C.G.A. 36-63- 1 (2013) 36-63-1. Short title This chapter may be referred to as the "Resource Recovery Development Authorities Law." O.C.G.A. 36-63-2 O.C.G.A. 36-63- 2 (2013) 36-63-2.
More information(Reprinted with amendments adopted on May 24, 2017) SECOND REPRINT A.B Referred to Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections
(Reprinted with amendments adopted on May, 0) SECOND REPRINT A.B. 0 ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 0 ASSEMBLYMEN DALY, FRIERSON, DIAZ, BENITEZ-THOMPSON, ARAUJO; BROOKS, CARRILLO, MCCURDY II AND MONROE-MORENO MARCH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 103 September Term, WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION, et al. COLLEEN BOWEN, et al.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 103 September Term, 2007 WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION, et al. v. COLLEEN BOWEN, et al. Bell, C. J. * Raker Harrell Battaglia Greene Eldridge, John C.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
TWILLADEAN CINK, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit November 27, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. JEFFREY F. SAYERS Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.
Case: 18-2195 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 20-1 Page: 1 Filed: 11/20/2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT JEFFREY F. SAYERS Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.
More informationCase: Document: 16 Filed: 12/02/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: December 02, 2016
Case: 16-6680 Document: 16 Filed: 12/02/2016 Page: 1 Deborah S. Hunt Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE CINCINNATI,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Case: 11-2288 Document: 006111258259 Filed: 03/28/2012 Page: 1 11-2288 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit GERALDINE A. FUHR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAZEL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case: 18-55667, 09/06/2018, ID: 11003807, DktEntry: 12, Page 1 of 18 No. 18-55667 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit STEVE GALLION, and Plaintiff-Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationAppeal No (Consolidated with Appeals and ) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Appeal No. 17-1137 (Consolidated with Appeals 17-1135 and 17-1136) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE and ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE; as parens patriae, to protect
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION. Plaintiff, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cummings v. Moore et al Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION BERTHA L. CUMMINGS, Plaintiff, v. Action No. 3:08 CV 579 EDDIE N. MOORE, JR., JANET DUGGER, RANDY
More information