Search

The article focuses on the constitutional implications of a three-year park access ban for individuals charged with littering in Asheville, North Carolina, as explored in the case of Norris v. City of Asheville. Topics include the allegations of First and Fourteenth Amendment violations by the plaintiffs, the procedural due process concerns surrounding the park ban policy, and the significant personal and professional impacts the bans have had on the affected individuals.

The article examines impact of anti-camping park laws on homeless people in the U.S. Topics discussed include insight on the public-camping ordinance in Boise, Idaho, camping ordinances of the City of Grants Pass, and lawsuit filed by two homeless individuals, Plaintiffs Gloria Johnson and John Logan, against Boise's public-camping laws.

The article discusses the case Meinecke v. City of Seattle which arose after Matthew Meinecke was attempting to read Bible passages to attendees gathered in Seattle, Washington during an abortion rally and an LGBTQ+ pride in June 2022. Topics include background on the case, the application of the First Amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and findings of the federal appeals court in the case.

The article examines the legal implications of parkland dedication fees in development projects, focusing on the requirements of "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" as mandated by U.S. Supreme Court precedent and Minnesota state law, using the case of Puce versus City of Burnsville as a lens. It discusses the application of these legal standards to ensure that fees imposed on developers correlate reasonably with the increased need for public open space generated by their projects.

The article focuses on a legal case involving negligence claims related to a youth sports concussion awareness policy violation. Topics discussed include the legal doctrine of the "Statute or Ordinance Rule" in establishing negligence liability; the specifics of the concussion awareness statutes and education codes; and the court's analysis of proximate causation in the context of preventing the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The article delves into a legal case, Mayor v. Wallace, where a recreational user was injured on the Waterfront Promenade, sparking debate over the extent of limited governmental immunity under Maryland's Recreational Use Statute (MRUS). It states that the trial court ruled against the City's immunity claim under the MRUS, awarding damages to the plaintiff, underscoring the nuanced interplay between immunity laws and differentiating recreational use from commuting activities in public spaces.

The article informs about a court case regarding the legality of a public parks provision in the New York Concealed Carry Improvement Act under the Second Amendment. Topic include the court considered historical analogues and ultimately rejected the state's argument, issuing a preliminary injunction against enforcing the law in public parks.

The article presents the discussion on alleging a hostile work environment, discrimination and retaliation in violation of federal civil rights law. Topics include plaintiff stated he complained about FC's repeated display of a noose on his phone and threats to hang him; and complained about a dozen times of race and religious discrimination to his supervisors.

The article offers information on a case where the diversion of public park resources to other public uses led to litigation. Topics include the case of Vertical Bridge Development, LLC v. Brawley City Council, where Vertical Bridge challenged the City of Brawley's decision to deny permission to construct a cell tower in a city-owned park.

The article reports on the legal case of Summerfield v. City of Inglewood, where the parents filed a wrongful death action, claiming the city's negligence in failing to install security cameras in a park with a history of criminal activity led to their son's fatal shooting. The topics include allegations of a "dangerous condition" in the park, challenges in establishing liability under Section 835 of the Government Code, and the court's ruling affirming the dismissal of the lawsuit.