Case Summaries

Elections

[05/06] Fieger v. Cox
In an action alleging vindictive prosecution against Michigan's Attorney General, a state Supreme Court Justice, and the state's Secretary of State, as well as others in the AG's office, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims and imposition of sanctions against them are affirmed where: 1) because the issues raised in a state court were substantially the same as those raised in the district court, because those interests implicated important state interests, and because the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to raise their constitutional challenge in the state proceedings, the district court properly refrained from exercising jurisdiction in this case; and 2) imposing sanctions for plaintiffs' claims against the justice was not an abuse of discretion.

[05/05] Shirt v. Hazeltine
An order denying plaintiffs' motion for expert witness fees under section 6 of the "Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006" ("VRARA") is affirmed where applying section 6 of VRARA would have retroactive effect, and thus in accordance with Supreme Court precedent, is presumed to not govern.

[05/01] Duke v. Leake
Dismissal of a challenge to the constitutionality of North Carolina's Judicial Campaign Reform Act, which creates a system of voluntary public financing for judicial candidates at the appellate level, is affirmed where the challenged provisions were permissible campaign finance regulations and were consistent with the First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), and McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).

[05/01] N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake
In an action challenging provisions of North Carolina's campaign finance laws, the lower court's decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) North Carolina's statutory attempt to use context to identify communications in support of or opposition to a candidate was facially unconstitutional; 2) North Carolina's use of "a major purpose" test to identify political committees was facially unconstitutional; and 3) North Carolina's $4,000 contribution limit unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff and other similarly situated entities.

[04/28] Nolles v. State Comm. for the Reorganization of Sch. Dists.
In an action challenging Nebraska's implementation of Legislative Bill 126 concerning the merger of certain school districts, an appeal from judgment for defendants on various constitutional claims is dismissed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff failed to allege a personalized injury for standing on a substantive due process claim; 2) plaintiff failed to allege a particularized injury to bring a procedural due process claim; and 3) the district court properly applied the doctrine of res judicata to preclude plaintiff's right-to-vote claims.

More...

Education

[05/07] Moore v. Forrest City Sch. Dist.
In a Title VII action against an employer alleging claims of racial discrimination and retaliation, judgment for employer is affirmed where: 1) the employer offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons behind its hiring and promoting decisions, and plaintiff failed to establish they were pretextual; and 2) plaintiff could not claim that her failure to be promoted was evidence of retaliation, as she chose not to apply for the position at issue.

[05/02] Savedoff v. Access Group, Inc.
In a class action raising breach of contract claims, partial summary judgment for plaintiff on the issue of liability on such claims is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) the language of the contract did not limit defendant's collection of additional interest to a borrower's final monthly payment at the end of the loan term; 2) the language of the contract did not prohibit defendant from collecting additional interest from borrower's regular monthly payments; and 3) the contract was silent as to the application of borrower's monthly payments to the additional interest before applying them to reduce the principal balance.

[04/29] Students for Sensible Drug Policy Found. v. Spellings
In an action wherein plaintiff sought an injunction and a declaratory judgment that 20 U.S.C. section 1901(r), which suspends eligibility for student loans following a conviction for enumerated drug offenses, contravenes the federal constitution, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the statutory scheme did not violate the Fifth Amendment's provision against double jeopardy, as its underlying provisions are not punitive in purpose or in effect so as to transform into a second criminal penalty.

[04/29] Roman v. Liberty Univ., Inc.
In a personal injury action, an order granting defendants' motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, as well as on the ground of forum non-conveniens, is affirmed where: 1) a defendant's conduct neither satisfied the "purposeful availment" nor the "relatedness" requirement to be subjected to specific jurisdiction; and 2) another suitable forum was available for plaintiff's action, and the trial court properly balanced the private and public interests for purposes of the forum non-conveniens issue.

[04/28] Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A.
In the context of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a student who never received special education and related services from a school district is not barred as a matter of law from receiving reimbursement for the costs of private school education.

More...