Automated license plate reader (ALPR) scan data is not subject to the "records of investigation" exemption under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), the California Supreme Court has ruled. The Court, however, did not foreclose the ability to withhold such information if it would invade an individual's privacy.
A Washington school district was not required to allow a high school football coach to pray on the 50-yard line at the end of each game, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (9th Cir. 2017, No. 16-35801) ___F.3d___ <http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/08/23/16-35801.pdf>.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may no longer require the registration of model aircraft, following the D.C. Circuit's decision inHuerta v. Taylor.
A divided California Supreme Court threw out a woman's claim against a public agency arising from resurfaced memories of alleged sexual abuse in the early 1990s because it was not submitted to the public agency by the six-month deadline for submitting such claims under the Government Claims Act. (Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1 et al. (Aug. 28, 2017, No. S234269)__ Cal.5th __.)
A California appeals court has found a city liable for attorney's fees after determining that a related lawsuit prompted the city to produce records during the litigation that the plaintiff had first sought through a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that the execution of a purchase and sale agreement for real property that is contingent upon compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not trigger a public agency's duty to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) under CEQA.
Two decisions in the last three months have increased the potential for a public entity to be held liable for an injury suffered on one of its recreational trails.
Changes to California's school funding scheme did not eliminate local school district and county office of education immunity from federal claims for damages, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
The United States Supreme Court has held that trademarks are private speech protected by the First Amendment, even if some find the ideas they express offensive.