Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission

The focus in this case is on justiciability issues of ripeness and standing. The parties to the action were a cohort of Anchorage landlords who were seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, and the Municipality of Anchorage. The landlords filed suit because their religious beliefs directly conflicted with laws prohibiting discrimination in housing in Anchorage, Alaska. The underlying reason for the dispute was the landlords' refusal to enter into leases with unmarried but cohabiting couples, a right which they maintained was constitutionally protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the landlords and awarded declaratory and injunctive relief. The U.S. Court of Appeals panel voted 2-1 to affirm the district court and the entire Ninth Circuit voted to review that decision en banc [all of the judges assigned to the Ninth Circuit]. The Court of Appeals concluded that the fact that state legislation regarding access to housing conflicted with the landlords' religious beliefs did not satisfy the requirements of the "case and controversy" requirement found in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the landlords were premature in bringing suit.

There were no present reasons to believe that any unmarried, cohabiting couple was about to approach these landlords seeking a lease; none of the landlords had recently denied a lease from such an applicant; no governmental official was threatening any landlord with prosecution; and no enforcement actions had ever been initiated by government in such cases. This case appeared to be brought to obtain an advisory judicial opinion based on a string of hypotheses.

DeFunis v. Odegaard

The plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the admissions policy of the University of Washington Law School, claiming that he was discriminated against on the basis of race, which violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. After the trial court granted the plaintiff's requested injunction, he was admitted to the school. The state supreme court reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and stayed the state supreme court's judgment pending final disposition of the case. DeFunis was in his last quarter of law school when the Supreme Court finally heard the matter. The Court found that regardless of any decision it rendered on the merits, the plaintiff would still graduate and, thus, the case was held to be moot.

Belk v. United States

Former Iranian hostages and two of their wives filed suit against the United States in the U.S. Claims Court seeking compensation because the Algiers Accord deprived them of the right to sue Iran for injuries sustained while being held hostage. The claims court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the suit on the ground that the complaint raised a political question, which the court is not permitted to entertain, and that the government's action did not constitute a "taking," which requires just compensation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, which stated that the case "involves a policy decision made by the president during a crisis situation" and therefore was not "susceptible to judicial review."

Marybeth Atkins v. Jiminy Peak, Inc.

This case involved a personal injury action brought by an injured skier against a ski area operator, who plaintiff claimed rented her defective ski equipment. The complaint was filed December 5, 1984, and the accident occurred March 20, 1982. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motion, and the case was transferred to the state supreme court on its own motion.

The plaintiff argued on appeal that because her suit was brought against the defendant in his capacity as the rentor of equipment, not as the operator of a ski resort, the one-year statute of limitations did not apply. The state supreme court affirmed the lower court's ruling. It stated that the one-year statute of limitations applied to all personal injury actions brought by skiers against ski area operators arising out of ski injuries.

Henry B. Shin v. Portals Confederation Corporation

Shin's fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract suit against his landlord, Portals, was dismissed by the trial court on res judicata grounds. The trial court found that there had been a prior dispute between these parties that had been tried to the Landlord-Tenant Court. The result of this earlier trial was a determination that the landlord was awarded possession of leased premises, and $26,058.62 in damages. Shin failed to raise his misrepresentation and breach of contract claims in that prior action and instead filed this new lawsuit. Res judicata prevents the relitigation of claims that have already been litigated by the same parties (there was an identity of parties and an identity of claims). Shin could have, and should have raised his claims in the Landlord-Tenant Court in the previous suit.

Brent v. Ashley

Rhonda Brent was taken into custody by Customs Agents at Miami International Airport. She was questioned, her luggage was searched, and she was subjected to a series of progressively invasive searches of her body. The first, a pat-down search, preceded a strip search, which was followed by an x-ray examination. The interrogations and searches produced neither incriminating information nor physical evidence that was of interest to law enforcement officers. They found absolutely nothing. Customs officers justified their actions on Brent's "nervousness" and the fact she was traveling from Nigeria.

Brent, believing that her treatment was invidious in nature and racially motivated, filed suit against the customs agents who had imposed the aforementioned regimen upon her and the United States. Her claims were based on the Federal Tort Claims Act, common law torts, and the commission of Fourth Amendment "Bivens" violations. The defendants claimed qualified immunity and six of the eight customs officers were awarded summary judgment by the district court. Brent appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Agents Ellis and Schor, who were supervising the other six officers, were denied summary judgment by the trial court. They appealed the district court's decision to the court of appeals. The Court of Appeals examined each search in turn to determine if the officers' actions complied with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals concluded that the officers had a right to conduct their initial stop; however, it also determined that officers violated Brent's Fourth Amendment rights in conducting the strip search and the x-ray examination. The Eleventh Circuit then turned its attention to whether Officers Ellis and Schor were entitled to qualified immunity. The court agreed with the district court that Ellis and Schor were not entitled to qualified immunity and that the other six officers were properly granted summary judgment because they were entitled to qualified immunity.

Thompson v. Mercy Hospital

This negligence action was brought by a mentally retarded woman employed by the hospital. The plaintiff claimed that the hospital did not train her properly and that she sustained injuries as a result. The hospital filed a motion to dismiss, invoking the charitable immunity defense, which the superior court granted. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded for the entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The appellate court concluded that since the hospital received less than one percent of its annual revenue from charitable sources, it could not benefit from the charitable immunity defense.

Hurst v. Capitell

A minor girl, through her grandmother, brought suit against her stepfather for sexual abuse and against her natural mother for allowing the abuse to happen. The trial court dismissed the action against the mother and granted summary judgment to the stepfather based on the parental immunity doctrine, which barred children from bringing personal injury suits against their parents. The minor appealed. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the lower court's decisions for both the stepfather and mother and remanded the case for a trial. The court expressly created an exception to the parental immunity doctrine for sexual abuse cases.

Gimpel v. Host Enterprises, Inc.

The plaintiff brought suit in U.S. District Court for injuries received when he fell off a bicycle rented from the resort. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to maintain and inspect the bicycle's brakes properly. The defendant moved for summary judgment based on the preprinted rental agreement, signed by the plaintiff, which released the defendant from all liability arising from the rental. The trial judge applied Pennsylvania law and held that the exculpatory clause contained within the rental agreement was valid and enforceable. Summary judgment, therefore, was granted.