Free Newsletter
4th Circuit: Skirt requirement violated rights
A public charter school violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it required female students to wear skirts to school based on the view that girls are “fragile vessels” deserving of “gentle” treatment by boys, the en banc 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled, affirming summary judgment in favor of […]
Domestic Relations – Equitable Distribution – Valuation – Sports Memorabilia – Wife’s Research
Although an unsubstantiated opinion as to property’s value is insufficient, the defendant-wife could testify about the value of the plaintiff-husband’s sports memorabilia collection after she (1) researched (a) plaintiff’s eBay bidding history, (b) his Bank of America credit card statements, and (c) a PayPal report in plaintiff’s name; (2) took inventory from the sports memorabilia [&helli[...]
Labor & Employment – Public Employees – Administrative – Law Enforcement Certification — Suspension
Krueger v. NC Criminal Justice & Training Standards Commission : A 180-day suspension of a law enforcement certification cannot be said to “shock the conscience” when the certified officer knowingly and willfully falsifies training records. Therefore, the suspended officer’s substantive due process rights have not been violated.
Labor & Employment – Civil Rights – Public Employees – Schools & School Boards – Constitutional – Equal Protection – Discrimination – Sexual Orientation – In Forma Pauperis
Dawkins v. Richmond County Schools Plaintiff alleges that he was let go from his teaching position because, according to a school administrator, the defendant-principal “had a problem with” plaintiff’s sexual orientation. This allegation is sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Constitutional – Equal Protection – Smoking Ban – Exemptions – Private Clubs – For Profit vs. Nonprofit
Edwards v. Morrow We read G.S. § 130A-496 to exempt private, nonprofit country clubs from the general prohibition on smoking in restaurants and bars; however, private, for-profit country clubs are not exempt from the ban. Given the General Assembly’s motive for enacting the ban – protection of the public from secondhand smoke – this is a rational, and therefore constitutional, dist[...]
Municipal – Ultra Vires Action – Subdivision Ordinance – Schools & School Boards – School Funding – Developer & Builder Fees – Civil Practice – Appeals – Interlocutory – Mootness – Standing – Statute of Limitations – Constitutional – Due Process – Equal Protection
Amward Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Our Court of Appeals held that the defendant-town was not responsible for setting up or funding schools, and it lacked statutory authority to charge developers and/or builders a fee designed to ensure adequate funding for area schools. With Justice Jackson not participating, the remaining members of the court are equally divided, with three members votin[...]
Constitutional – Equal Protection — Smoking Ban – Private Clubs – First Impression — Administrative — Civil Penalties
Liebes v. Guilford County Dept. of Public Health The statutory scheme exempting nonprofit private clubs but including for-profit private clubs within the ambit of the smoking ban does not violate the plaintiff’s equal protection rights since there exists a rational basis for the legislature’s differential treatment of for-profit and nonprofit private clubs. We affirm the trial cour[...]
Constitutional – Public-Purpose Clause – Exclusive Emoluments – Equal Protection – Standing
Saine v. State. The session law allocating $1 million to Johnson and Wales University serves a public purpose by providing funds to a private, nonprofit university in order to assist in educating N.C. citizens . . .
Municipal – Ultra Vires Action – Subdivision Ordinance – Schools & School Boards – School Funding – Developer & Builder Fees – Civil Practice – Appeals – Interlocutory – Mootness – Standing – Statute of Limitations – Constitutional – Due Process – Equal Protection
Amward Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary. The defendant-town was not responsible for setting up or funding schools, and it lacked statutory authority to charge developers and/or builders a fee designed to ensure adequate funding for area schools. [...]
Top Legal News
- Catesha Hargro: Finding pathways forward
- Cooper vetoes bill over control of election boards
- Judge dismisses state lawmaker’s defamation suit
- 5th Circuit blocks Louisiana redistricting hearings
- Bonnie Keen: Charting her own course
- Courts’ work will continue amid government shutdown
- NC lawmakers to redraw district maps again
- Mississippi activists ask to join water lawsuit
- State judge blocks gender-affirming care ban
- Menendez pleads not guilty in wide-ranging corruption case
- Lawyer in Trump-Russia probe confirmed for Connecticut high court
- Commercial vehicle crash claims life of wife, mother: $3.99 million settlement
Commentary
- Amotion sees resurgence after almost a decade
- The flip side of generative AI in law and how to address it
- The fight for equal educational opportunity continues
- Court’s term was rough on big business
- Ex-president, bar association have made their choice
- Ruling sharpens boundaries in attorney-client privilege
- Lawyers Weekly debuts new and improved web experience
- US Supreme Court bites back at parody’s use of the First Amendment
- Supreme Court leaves key internet protection untouched
- Case study: North Carolina courts provide guidance on scope, limitations of attorney-client privilege
- A Different Ode to Pro Bono Work
- A roadmap to attracting, developing, retaining great associates
