Case Summaries

More...

[09/02] Bakalar v. Vavra
In an action seeking a declaration that plaintiff was the owner of a drawing by Egon Schiele, judgment for plaintiff is vacated where: 1) although it is unclear whether a cause of action comparable to the counterclaims of defendants could be successfully brought in Austria, allowing the claims to go forward under New York law was consistent with the principles underlying the decision of the Supreme Court of Austria; and 2) the district judge, by applying Swiss Law, erred in placing the burden of proof on defendants to show that the Nazis looted the drawing.

[09/01] Gallagher v. Magner
In consolidated actions by several owners and former owners of rental properties in St. Paul, Minnesota, challenging the City of St. Paul's enforcement of its housing code, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiffs did not assert a claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework; 2) plaintiffs were not exercising a right under the Fair Housing Act by leasing to racial minorities; and 3) plaintiffs failed to reference a particular section of the St. Paul Code, let alone analyze why that section was vague. However, the order is reversed in part where the city's aggressive enforcement of the Housing Code resulted in a disproportionate adverse effect on racial minorities, particularly African-Americans.

[08/31] Wickens v. Shell Oil Co.
In plaintiffs' suit against Shell Oil under Indiana's Underground Storage Tank Act, claiming that Shell Oil was liable for the contamination on a plot of land where plaintiffs' shoe store was located, district court's grant of most of the plaintiffs' requests for corrective actions costs and attorney's fees is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) without a better showing from the plaintiffs' attorney, the court will assume that the district court did its job properly when it decided to award $37,443.25 in litigation costs and disbursements; 2) there is no error in ordering Shell to pay for the corrective action costs incurred in May and June 2007; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the attorney's request for prejudgment interest; 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shell's Rule 60(b) motion; and 5) district court's judgment is reversed and remanded insofar as it miscalculated when it deducted the attorney's wife's fees from the attorneys' fees award.

[08/31] Pac. Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates LLC. v. City of Los Angeles
In a developer's suit against the City of Los Angeles for rejecting as incomplete an application for conversion of its mobilehome park because the application failed to include an application for clearance under the Mello Act and an application for a coastal development permit under the Coastal Act, trial court's entry of judgment directing issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the city to deem plaintiff's application complete is reversed and vacated as, in light of the paramount concern for protecting coastal resources by regulating development as expressed in the Coastal Act, section 66427.5 does not preclude the city from imposing conditions and requirements mandated by the Mello Act and Coastal Act on a subdivider seeking to convert to resident ownership a mobilehome park located in the coastal zone.

[08/31] Colony Cove Properties, LLC. v. City of Carson
In a mobilehome park owner's challenge to a city ordinance specifying conditions permitting conversion of a mobilehome park from landlord ownership to resident ownership, trial court's conclusion that the city's responsibilities when faced with a mobilehome park conversion application were essentially ministerial, in issuing a writ directing the city to vacate the ordinance in its entirety and to vacate an ordinance imposing a moratorium on mobilehome park conversions while the city studied the issue is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) trial court's conclusion that the city's role under section 66427.5 is purely ministerial is incorrect; 2) the ordinance at issue conflicted with section 66427.5 and is therefore invalid; and 3) the issue of the validity of the moratorium was moot at the time the writ was granted.

[08/31] Roberts v. Doyle
An order of the Second Circuit enjoining the Secretary of State from placing Amendment 3 on the November 2010 general election ballot is affirmed where: 1) the ballot title and summary are confusing to the average voter as the lack of an effective date renders it impossible for a voter to know which homeowners would qualify for the exemption; 2) the ballot title and summary fail to mention that a married person could fail to qualify for the exemption because his or her spouse previously owned a residence; and 3) a voter reading the title and summary could easily conclude that in order to be eligible for the additional homestead, a property owner would have to meet two conditions.

More...