(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a false arrest case contending that police invented a false confession to aid in the prosecution of plaintiff, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and New York common law, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants is: 1) reversed where plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to constitute violations of New York's false arrest and malicious prosecution claims and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claims against individually-named plaintiffs; and 2) affirmed as to the City of New York and New York City Police Department in accordance with Monell v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Soc. Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an environmental action, challenging a Town Board's positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and requiring a draft environmental impact statement, the trial court's dismissal of the petition is affirmed where the positive declaration is not justiciable and the case not ripe for judicial review.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for manslaughter and possession of a weapon is affirmed where the trial court's supplemental instruction to the jury to continue deliberating, following the jury's return of a verdict which polling determined not to be unanimous, did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an injury and tort action, brought against defendant city after twelve-year old plaintiff was seriously injured in a collision involving a speeding driver on a Brooklyn roadway, the trial court's entry of judgment for plaintiff is affirmed. The Court held that: 1) plaintiff did not have to prove the existence of a special duty because the city's acts or omissions regarding the road were made in a proprietary capacity; 2) the evidence was legally sufficient to uphold the jury's finding that the city's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident; and 3) the doctrine of qualified immunity did not apply.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for first-degree robbery is reversed and a new trial ordered where: 1) skin color is a cognizable classification upon which a challenge to a prosecutor's peremptory strikes can be made under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); and 2) defendant made a prima facie showing of discrimination and the prosecutor failed to give a non-discriminatory reason for the juror exclusion at issue.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Police officers who could not recall making a Terry stop of three black men in a grey sedan following a nearby shooting were entitled to qualified immunity because the description of the shooter was close enough to justify the stop.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The bankruptcy court's rejection of a Texas Port Authority's claims of sovereign immunity and fraud in their gambit to invalidate a bankruptcy sale that extinguished an easement they held was affirmed because there was no Eleventh Amendment violation or basis to claim fraud.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The court's imposition of conditions on supervised release could not be appealed as violations of due process rights by the convicted because they failed to object to them in district court and therefore waived the issue.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. The appeals court found that the trial court erred in partially granting a motion to suppress evidence obtained by a warrantless search.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially affirmed, remanded. A Texas ban on public corporations obtaining package store permits did not violate Equal Protection rights, but the district court erred in finding a discriminatory nature and burden imposed by the public corporation ban.

(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed a suit brought by a man whose state court award in a Takings Clause suit against state officials was unsatisfying to him. The State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A conservation and reclamation district regulating groundwater was not subject to the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause because they are a special purpose unit of the government. Its apportionment scheme had a rational basis.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remand for new trial. Defendant is a sexually violent predator who is currently receiving treatment at a state mental hospital. He challenged the court order denying his petition to be placed in a conditional release program on the grounds that he was denied a fair trial. The appeals court agreed stating that the prosecutor interfered with Defendant’s right to testify and the trial court erroneously refused to admit his release plan into evidence. The appeals court held that a fair trial is a fundamental right.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a case to determine whether SB 2460, which the New Jersey Legislature enacted in 2014 (2014 Law) to partially repeal certain prohibitions on sports gambling, violates federal law the district court's judgment that the 2014 Law violates the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S.C. sections 3701-3704, is affirmed where PASPA, but its terms, prohibits states from authorizing by law sports gambling, and the 2014 Law does exactly that.

(United States First Circuit) - In a civil forfeiture case arising in the aftermath of a 1993 criminal prosecution in which claimant entered a guilty plea to a single count charging money laundering violations, seeking compensation for the government's alleged seizure of claimant's ownership interest in a professional basketball team franchise, the district court's judgment in favor of the government is affirmed where: 1) nothing in the court records suggests that the government seized the franchise when it obtained the restraining order to preserve the franchise as a potentially forfeitable asset; and 2) though that order effectively prevented the claimant from participating in the affairs of the franchise, it did not divest him of his proprietary interest.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an appeal to determine where whether SB 2460, which the New Jersey Legislature enacted in 2014 to partially repeal certain prohibitions on sports gambling, violates federal law, the District Court's holding that the 2014 Law violates the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S.C. sections 3701-3704, is affirmed where PASPA by its terms, prohibits states from authorizing by law sports gambling, and the 2014 Law does exactly that.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a quarter horse trainer's petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, challenged a license suspension and fine imposed upon him by the California Horse Racing Board after finding he violated the Board's regulations by racing horses medicated with a drug that the Board had temporarily suspended from authorized use, the petition is granted where the Board's successive temporary suspensions of the drug violated the provisions of the rule permitting temporary suspension of an authorized drug and thus exceeded the Board's authority.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the denial of the North American Soccer League's motion for preliminary injunction seeking Division II designation pending the resolution of its antitrust case against the United States Soccer Federation because they had failed to demonstrate a clear likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a former professional football player's claim for workers' compensation benefits as former defensive tackle, Larry Tripplett, sought workers' compensation for cumulative injuries he suffered during his playing career. He argued that he was eligible for benefits in California, but the Fourth Appellate District disagreed, finding that he was ineligible because he was outside the state when he signed his employment contract with the Indianapolis Colts.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed summary judgment against private landowners in a dispute regarding the boundaries of a hiking and biking trail built along the path of an old railroad easement. The landowners, whose properties abutted the rail corridor, sued the county government to challenge the nature, scope, and width of the corridor covered by the easement. The county counterclaimed asking the court to quiet title. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the county was entitled to prevail.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated a consumer's proposed class action lawsuit against a manufacturer of nutritional supplements. Held that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act did not preempt the consumer's California law claims that the company made false or misleading statements about the source of the protein in one of its muscle-building products. Reversed dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived claims brought by several African-American college basketball players that their head coach had engaged in race-based discrimination and retaliation. The players claimed that the coach reduced their playing time, afforded them fewer opportunities, punished them more severely and otherwise favored their teammates of other races. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part on their claims under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California law.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a man who was shot in the parking lot after a professional football game could not proceed with his personal injury claims. His lawsuit against the football team was barred by the statute of limitations. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a case arising from a bitter bidding dispute for a contract to strip and repaint the Commodore Barry Bridge, in which the contracting agency rejected the lowest bidder-plaintiff because it determined that plaintiff was not a 'responsible' contractor, the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff is: 1) affirmed in part where the district court did not err in ruling that defendant acted arbitrarily and capriciously; but 2) vacated in part where the district court abused its discretion in directing defendant to award the contract to plaintiff.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a construction company's suit against a city for breach of contract, alleging that the city unlawfully assessed liquidated damages against the company for failure to complete a construction project on time, the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where plaintiff is not excused from the normal requirement of administrative exhaustion under Maryland law.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a breach of contract action against the Government, the Court of Federal Claims grant of summary judgment in favor of the Government is affirmed where the contracts whereby plaintiff provides closing services for homes owned by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) unambiguously preclude plaintiff from charging additional closing fees.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In the Government's appeal of attorney's fees awarded to plaintiff by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. sections 2412(a) and (d)(1)(A) (2012), the Claims Court's conclusion that comments made by the Court during a hearing and prior to the Government taking corrective action materially altered the relationship between the parties such that plaintiff qualified as a 'prevailing party' under the EAJA, the award is reversed where a strong comment by a trial court is not tantamount to a ruling on the merits or a court order.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a reverse validation action under Code Civ. Proc. section 863 challenging the propriety of school districts' use of lease-leaseback agreements in contracting for construction or improvement of school facilities, the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants' demurrer is: 1) reversed in part as to the conflict of interest claim where plaintiff has stated a claim of conflict of interest against the construction company-defendant sufficient to withstand a demurrer; but 2) otherwise affirmed.

(United States First Circuit) - In a suit brought under a Puerto Rico 'Law 458', which prohibits government instrumentalities and public corporations from awarding bids or contracts to persons (including juridical persons) who have been convicted of 'crimes that constitute fraud, embezzlement or misappropriation of public funds listed in section 928b of this title,' P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 3, section 928, the district court's judgment remanding the case to the Commonwealth Puerto Rico Court of First Instance is affirmed where the forum selection clauses at issue were enforceable, and that the unanimity requirement of 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b)(2)(A) therefore could not be satisfied.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the remand of a case involving a dispute between a government contractor and its subcontractor because the party seeking to remove to federal court filed an untimely notice to remove and had waived its right to remove by engaging in substantive defensive action in state court prior to filing a notice of removal by filing counterclaims in state court.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the grant of summary judgment for the Army and dismissing the private party's claims for contract reformation and breach of contract in the case of a marina on land leased from the Army that was rendered unusable for a period of time while the Army reduced the water level of a lake to repair a dam.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the conviction of a man for charges relating to a his procurement of government contracts for his construction company on the false pretense that the company was owned and controlled by military veterans who became disabled in connection with their military service.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a False Claims Act lawsuit alleging fraud in connection with the sale of pharmaceutical drugs to nursing homes. The defendant company, which owns and operates institutional pharmacies, argued for dismissal of the qui tam action on the ground that the allegation was already known to the public, and the district court agreed. Reversing and remanding, the Third Circuit held that the relator's allegation had not previously been publicly disclosed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Pomona violated the terms of a 1993 ballot initiative prohibiting the construction of additional billboards within city limits. A citizen group challenged the city council's decision to extend a pre-existing agreement with an outdoor advertising company when the arrangement expired in 2014. Affirmed the granting of a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an attorney fee award to a government contractor that defeated a municipality's claim brought under the California False Claims Act, even though the contractor did not prevail in the action as a whole.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the U.S. government could not constitutionally deny funding to fight HIV/AIDS abroad based on a foreign organization's failure to adopt a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Affirmed the issuance of a permanent injunction on First Amendment grounds. The government had been interpreting a related 2013 Supreme Court decision narrowly.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - District court's granting of summary judgment and bench verdict for Defendant affirmed. Sherman Act claim fails where the only current feasible way to comply with Chicagoland area city commercial fire safety ordinances was to use an exclusive provider. Under Fisher v. City of Berkeley, government restraints on trade imposed unilaterally do not form the basis of a Section 1 or Section 2 claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an arbitrator's decision in favor of a builder in a dispute with a community association over alleged defects in construction. The association, consisting of residential condominium units, argued that its arbitration claim should not have been dismissed on summary judgment even though the association had filed the claim without first receiving the consent of its members, in violation of its declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Agreeing with the builder, the California Fourth Appellate District affirmed denial of the association's motion to vacate the arbitrator's decision.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of an Indian tribe's complaint against federal and Rhode Island agencies concerning a highway bridge reconstruction. The tribe argued, at base, that the state of Rhode Island broke a promise to give the tribe three parcels of land as mitigation for the expected negative impact on historic tribal land of an I-95 bridge replacement project. Agreeing with the district court, the First Circuit held that the tribe's claims were barred by federal sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the California Coastal Commission did not act contrary to law in refusing to certify the San Diego Unified Port District's proposed master plan amendment authorizing a hotel development project, in a reversal of the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld the City of San Diego's decision to approve an environmental impact report addendum for an urban park project. Affirmed the denial of a citizen group's petition for writ of mandamus.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an electrical contractor could not proceed with its lawsuit challenging a state licensing board's disciplinary decision, because the contractor was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before filing suit. Granted the licensing board's petition for a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a decision of the Contractors' State License Board finding that a large contracting company violated California law by failing to obtain a building permit before replacing a boiler. Affirmed the denial of the company's writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order voiding a default judgment on procedural grounds. Held that the complaint did not provide adequate notice to sustain a default because it failed to specify the amount of damages that the plaintiff was seeking, and instead merely prayed for "damages according to proof," in this lawsuit related to the construction of a hotel.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that mediation costs fall within the category of costs that may be awarded in the trial court’s discretion. Affirmed an award to the prevailing party in this construction dispute.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups lacked a valid basis to challenge a city council's decision to approve the construction of an eight-unit multifamily residential building. Affirmed denial of a writ petition, in a case involving compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an arbitrator made an "irrational" decision in a contract dispute between two government contractors. Affirmed the district court's vacatur of the arbitration award, in this case involving contracts to construct buildings and facilities in Afghanistan.

(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.