opinion and polls

Smith v. Berryhill

(United States Supreme Court) - On a question of administrative law, held that where the Social Security Administration Appeals Council has dismissed a request for review as untimely after a claimant has obtained a hearing from an ALJ on the merits, that dismissal qualifies as a final administrative decision so as to allow judicial review. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court.




opinion and polls

Estrella v. Berryhill

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a benefit claimant's challenge to a denial of Social Security disability benefits. She contended that the ALJ should have given more weight to the opinion of her treating physician. Vacated and remanded.




opinion and polls

Azar v. Allina Health Services

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services neglected its statutory notice-and-comment obligations when it revealed a new policy that dramatically -- and retroactively -- reduced Medicare payments to hospitals serving low-income patients. Concluded that the new policy must be vacated. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the 7-1 Court (Justice Kavanaugh did not participate).




opinion and polls

Forrest General Hospital v. Azar

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services improperly calculated two Mississippi hospitals' Medicare reimbursements, specifically, so-called Disproportionate Share Hospital payments. Reversed the decision below and remanded to the agency.




opinion and polls

Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian v. Kent

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a hospital waited too long to file an administrative appeal challenging a reduction in Medi-Cal reimbursements. Affirmed that the filing was untimely.




opinion and polls

Lomeli v. State Dept. of Health Care Services

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued medical providers for birth injuries that were paid for through Medi-Cal. The Department of Health Care Services put a lien on the monies recovered from the medical providers. Plaintiff sought to remove lien. Court held that Medi-Cal was entitled to repayment and upheld the lien.




opinion and polls

Kisor v Wilkie

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiff is a Vietnam veteran who sought disability benefits from the Veterans Administration for post-traumatic stress. The VA eventually granted benefits but only from the motion to re-open his case and not from the date of the original application. Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling citing the deference doctrine. The US Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded to have the lower court determine if the deference doctrine applied in this case.




opinion and polls

In Re: Devan Dennis and Tyeane Halbert

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The Illinois Child Care Assistance Program could not collect overpayments made to debtors under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program who filed for bankruptcy.




opinion and polls

Blaser v. State Teachers' Retirement System

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff, a retired teacher, sought relief to prevent Defendant from reducing retirement benefits and to restore monies wrongfully withheld. The trial court held that Defendant was time-barred to reduce benefits and collect over payment, thus concluding that continuous accrual theory did not apply. Appeals court held the continuous accrual theory did apply, but Defendant was time barred as to over payments made more than three years before the action was filed and may adjust future monthly payments to recoup those prior over payments.




opinion and polls

D.C. Association of Chartered Public Schools v. District of Columbia

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The district court dismissed claims by a group of chartered schools complaining about school funding practices but the case was vacated and remanded for dismissal because they lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims in the first instance.




opinion and polls

Crump v. Saul

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The denial by an administrative law judge of an individual's application for disability benefits based on mental health impairments and its subsequent affirmation by the district court were vacated because the ALJ didn't adequately account for the person's difficulties with concentration, persistence, or pace in the workplace.




opinion and polls

Robles v. Employment Development Dept

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Plaintiff sued for the wrongful denial of unemployment benefits. On appeal, Plaintiff was granted unemployment benefits. On this, Plaintiff's third appeal over this controversy, the appeals court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, but reversed and remanded because the trial court improperly limited the scope of the fees.




opinion and polls

Boucher v. AGRI

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. The removal of nine trees on a family farm in Indiana did not convert a family farm from wetlands into croplands, rendering it ineligible for USDA benefits that would have otherwise been available.




opinion and polls

Johnson v. Housing Authority of City of Oakland

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant, housing authority, terminated Plaintiff’s federally funded subsidized housing program. The trial court ordered Defendant to vacate its order. The appeals court found that there was nothing in the Defendant’s hearing of termination that indicated an abuse of discretion and reversed the trial court’s ruling.




opinion and polls

Rodriguez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd

(California Court of Appeal) - Plaintiff applied for disability retirement. His employer disputed his retirement and his claim of industrial causation. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that the disability was industrial, but that he was barred from receiving retirement benefits because his claim was untimely. The appeals court held that the industrial causation claim was timely and reversed the WCAB order and remanded with directions to grant Plaintiff’s claim.




opinion and polls

Omlansky v. Save Mart Supermarkets

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff brought a qui tam action alleging that Defendant violated the False Claims Act in its billings to Medi-Cal. The trial court sustained a demurrer and entered a judgment of dismissal of the complaint. The appeals court held that Defendant did not violate any requirement under law as to its billings to Medi-Cal.




opinion and polls

Berkeley Hills Watershed Coalition v. City of Berkeley

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighborhood organization could not stop the construction of three new single-family homes in a certain location, despite alleged violations of zoning and environmental laws. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.




opinion and polls

Save Lafayette Trees v. City of Lafayette

(California Court of Appeal) - In an amended opinion, revived a citizen group's claim that a city violated the California Environmental Quality Act when it authorized a utility company to remove numerous trees within its local natural gas pipeline rights-of-way. Reversed a demurrer ruling, in relevant part.




opinion and polls

In re Border Infrastructure Environmental Litigation

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had the statutory authority to expedite construction of physical border barriers near San Diego and Calexico, California. The State of California and multiple environmental groups challenged the agency's 2017 authorization of these projects, which involved wall prototypes and tens of miles of replacement fencing. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the federal government.




opinion and polls

Fudge v. City of Laguna Beach

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed a mootness ruling in a dispute between two neighbors over the proposed demolition of a Laguna Beach house and its replacement with a new three-story residence. The case involved the California Environmental Quality Act and Coastal Commission rules.




opinion and polls

LAJIM, LLC v. General Electric Co.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that adjoining landowners were not entitled to injunctive relief against a company whose manufacturing plant had polluted the groundwater, in an action under the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The plaintiffs did not demonstrate a need for injunctive relief, because state environmental regulators had already sued the company and the two were working together on remedial steps. Affirmed the ruling below.




opinion and polls

Liebhart v. SPX Corp.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived property owners' claim that toxic dust and debris from the demolition of an abandoned factory migrated onto their properties, jeopardizing their health and the health of their tenants. Vacated a summary judgment ruling, in a lawsuit brought under federal statutes authorizing private rights of action for environmental contamination, and also under state law.




opinion and polls

Vermont Railway Inc. v. Town of Shelburne

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a town could not enforce a hazardous substances ordinance against a railroad company that was building a road salt transloading facility. The ordinance was preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. Affirmed a permanent injunction against the town.




opinion and polls

WildEarth Guardians v. Provencio

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that environmental advocacy groups could not proceed with their challenge to the U.S. Forest Service's decision to permit the limited use of motor vehicles off-road in a national forest in Arizona for certain purposes. Affirmed summary judgment against the environmental groups' claims.




opinion and polls

BP Exploration and Production Inc. v. Claimant ID 100217946

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a nonprofit organization was entitled to compensation under a settlement program that oil company BP established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the claims administrator's decision.




opinion and polls

BP Exploration and Production Inc. v. Claimant ID 100281817

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.




opinion and polls

Ione Valley Land, Air, and Water Defense Alliance, LLC v. County of Amador

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.




opinion and polls

South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.




opinion and polls

BP Exploration and Production, Inc. v. Claimant ID 100141850

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer was entitled to millions of dollars in compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.




opinion and polls

Sturgeon v. Frost

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the National Park Service lacked authority to regulate boating on Alaska's Nation River. A moose hunter contended that the Park Service could not ban him from using a hovercraft on a portion of the river that crossed a national preserve. Ruling in his favor, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that while the Park Service normally may establish rules for boating on waters within national parks, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act creates an Alaska-specific exception. Justice Kagan delivered the unanimous opinion.




opinion and polls

BP Exploration and Production, Inc. v. Claimant ID 100261922

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an Alabama-based manufacturer of commercial signs was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.




opinion and polls

T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco

(Supreme Court of California) - Upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires wireless phone service companies to obtain permits and conform with aesthetic guidelines when installing lines and equipment on utility poles. The companies sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is inconsistent with state law. However, the California Supreme Court was not persuaded by the companies' arguments.




opinion and polls

BP Exploration and Production, Inc. v. Claimant ID 100166533

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an electrical contractor was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.




opinion and polls

Claimant ID 100081155 v. BP Exploration and Production, Inc.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a short-term vacation rental business was improperly denied compensation for losses attributable to BP's 2010 oil spill. The settlement program administrator, and the district court, misinterpreted the settlement agreement's definition of a failed business. Vacated and remanded.




opinion and polls

Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. EPA

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Invalidated portions of an Environment Protection Agency final rule regarding waste streams from steam-electric power plants. Remanded to the agency for reconsideration in regard to legacy wastewater and combustion residual leachate, in this challenge brought by environmentalists, utilities and others.




opinion and polls

Sustainability, Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Defense Fund v. Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental group's challenge to the issuance of a revised permit for a landfill. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.




opinion and polls

Western Watersheds Project v. Grimm

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived conservationist groups' challenge to the federal government's participation in the killing of gray wolves in Idaho. Reversed a dismissal for lack of Article III standing and remanded.




opinion and polls

Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Rose

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Addressed an environmental group's challenge to the Bureau of Land Management's decisions about the route network for motorized vehicles on certain lands. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.




opinion and polls

Government of the Province of Manitoba v. Bernhardt

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the State of Missouri lacked legal standing to sue the federal government on behalf of its citizens to challenge a federal water supply project that will divert billions of gallons of Missouri River water. The issue involved so-called parens patriae standing. Affirmed a dismissal.




opinion and polls

WildEarth Guardians v. Provencio

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that environmental advocacy groups could not proceed with their challenge to the U.S. Forest Service's decision to permit limited motorized big game retrieval in a national forest in Arizona. Affirmed summary judgment against the environmental groups' claims.




opinion and polls

Varlen Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to indemnify an insured for the cost of cleaning up groundwater contamination at its industrial sites. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, in this case involving the policy's pollution exclusion clause.




opinion and polls

Herrera v. Wyoming

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that members of the Crow Tribe retain a broad right under an 1868 Treaty to hunt on land that is now part of the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming. One issue was whether the treaty hunting rights expired when Wyoming became a state. The U.S. Supreme Court, divided 5-4, ruled favorably to the Tribe. Justice Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion.




opinion and polls

Center for Biological Diversity v. US Forest Service

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived environmental organizations' lawsuit seeking to compel the U.S. Forest Service to ban hunters' use of lead ammunition, which is ingested by scavenger wildlife species and causes lead poisoning. Held that the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief was justiciable. Reversed a dismissal and remanded.




opinion and polls

Sierra Club, Inc. v. US Fish and Wildlife Service

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion in a Freedom of Information Act case, held that the Sierra Club was entitled to certain records generated during the Environmental Protection Agency's rule-making process concerning cooling water intake structures. However, other records were protected from public release by the deliberative process privilege. Reversed in part and remanded.




opinion and polls

Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Conservation

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental advocacy group's challenge to an environmental impact report prepared by the California Department of Conservation addressing the effects of hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation treatments. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.




opinion and polls

Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the federal Atomic Energy Act did not preempt a Virginia law prohibiting uranium mining. While six justices agreed that the state ban on uranium mining was not preempted, they divided on broader questions concerning statutory interpretation and preemption doctrine, and thus were unable to agree on the rationale for the decision. Justice Gorsuch delivered a plurality opinion, and several justices concurred in the judgment only.




opinion and polls

San Diego Gas and Electric Co. v. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a cleanup and abatement order issued to a utility company, which was found to be a responsible party for pollution in San Diego Bay, nearby which it operated a power plant for many years. Affirmed the denial of the company's petition for writ relief.




opinion and polls

Center for Biological Diversity v. Ilano

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the U.S. Forest Service's approval of a project to address spreading pine-beetle infestation in certain at-risk forest lands. Rejected environmental groups' claims concerning the impact on a particular species of owl. Affirmed summary judgment for the government.




opinion and polls

SelectSun GmbH v. Porter, Inc.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a yacht buyer may not proceed with a contract and warranty lawsuit against a yacht manufacturer. Affirmed a judgment after a bench trial, in a dispute involving the exhaust system's compliance with European Union regulatory requirements.




opinion and polls

In re Deepwater Horizon

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a case involving the Deepwater Horizon Class Action Settlement Agreement, held that the district court erred in analyzing certain business claims for economic loss. The issue had to do with the process of matching revenues and expenses. Reversed and remanded.