ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Administrative Law Blogs -> Within the Scope

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Administrative Law

: Within the Scope

A Few Short Notes on Tuesday's Big Cases

By E.L. Lipman

ADVERTISEMENTS
As if to herald that the holiday season really is over, yesterday was a big day in courts close to home and around the country. Here are a few short notes:

In Advantage Media, LLC v. City of Hopkins, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit turned away the attorney fee petition of a local billboard company that had earlier won a preliminary injunction against the City of Hopkins' sign ordinance. While the District Court entering the injunction had concluded that the sign ordinance was unconstitutionally overbroad, the panel noted that "as to Advantage [Media], the unconstitutional provisions of the Hopkins's sign code had no impact." Without such an impact, and a "material alteration in the parties' legal relationship," the panel concluded that the advertiser was not a prevailing party that was entitled to recover its attorneys fees.

The panel's complete analysis is accessible here.

In John R. Sand & Gravel Company v. United States, a 7 to 2 majority of the United States Supreme Court affirmed an earlier decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that as to claims against the federal government under the Tucker Act, courts must, sua sponte if necessary, assess whether the claims are timely filed. In John R., the government had conceded that the plaintiff's taking claims were timely raised; but the Federal Circuit went on to consider the issue on its own, and hold that the actions were time barred, notwithstanding the government's apparent waiver on this issue.

Agreeing, a majority of the Court concluded that the "ordinary legal principle that limitation is a defense that a defendant must plead has no application to suits [in the Court of Federal Claims] against the United States." The Court's complete analysis is accessible here.

As time permits, I will be writing more on other events that occurred during this big day.... Please stay tuned.

Full post as published by Within the Scope on January 09, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 11/03/26 10:05:16)