[¶1] This case involves a straightforward question: Can an existing restaurant in the Town of Mount Desert provide outdoor seating to its patrons? In the four years since the restaurant owner applied to the Town for authorization to provide that outdoor seating, the matter has been addressed by the Town’s Planning Board, the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals, the Superior Court, and us on multip

Appellant Francis J. Farina brought this class action against various cell phone manufacturers and retailers of wireless handheld telephones. He appeals from the dismissal of his complaint on the ground that his claims are preempted by regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission. We will affirm.

I.

Farina represents a putative class consisting of all past, curren

A majority of the court has concluded that the plaintiffs have standing. A separate majority, for differing reasons, affirms the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim. Parts I and II of this opinion are joined by Judges THOMAS, SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, BYBEE, and IKUTA.

Part III of this opinion, addressing the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim, is a dissent, joined by Judges BY

The plaintiff, Elise Piquet, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, the town of Chester and its planning and zoning commission, granting their motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) required her to bear the burden of proof in providing evidence that there was a genuine issue of material fact in opposi

The defendant Guaranty Fund Management Services1 appeals2 from the decision of the compensation review board (board), which upheld the decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner for the third district (commissioner) imposing sanctions against the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association (association)3 pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 31-288 (b)4 and ordering the associati

This is a dispute between partners in an adult entertainment business. After finding accounting irregularities, plaintiff Akbar Baharian-Mehr sued the corporation which operated the business and his partners Glenn Smith (Smith), Leroy Smith (Leroy) and Theron Smith (Theron).1 Smith then filed a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute.2 (Subsequ

Maple Street A.M.E. Zion Church (Church) and the City of Williamsport and City Council of the City of Williamsport (collectively, City) file cross-appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County (trial court) striking a condition requiring the Church to obtain a written license for eight off-street parking spaces and otherwise affirming the City Council of the City of Willia

Petitioners seek review of a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision that affirmed Deschutes County's interpretation of its own code provisions regarding mining near "dust-sensitive uses" and "noise-sensitive uses." Those provisions, petitioners contend, protect petitioners' entire parcel rather than simply a residence on their property. The county, however, interpreted the "dust-sensitive use

¶1 In this case, members of the Petersen Family (the “Petersens”) appeal the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Riverton City, which upheld the Riverton City Council’s denial of the Petersens’ application to rezone a 20.84 acre parcel of land they own in Riverton City (the “Property”). The Petersens argue that the district court erred when it applied the reasonab

Particularly in these days of rampant foreclosures and short sales, “[t]he manner in which California‟s licensed real estate brokers and salesmen conduct business is a matter of public interest and concern. [Citations.]” (Wilson v. Lewis (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 802, 805-806.) When the real estate professionals involved in the purchase and sale of a residential property do not disclose to the b

In this most unusual of summary judgment cases, the defendants, the town of Fairfield (town), the board of education of the town of Fairfield (board) and certain employees thereof,1 appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motions for a continuance of trial and summary judgment against the plaintiff, Siriwat Singhaviroj. The defendants claim that the court (1) improperly denied th

Respondent Lauren Carter sued her landlord, appellant Jerry Cohen, alleging that her rent payments contravened the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (L.A. Mun. Code, ch. XV., art. I., § 151.00 et seq.) (RSO).1 After a jury found that Carter was entitled to damages of $11,590 for overpayment of rent, the trial court awarded her $25,575 in attorney fees under a fee-shifting provision of the

Ours is a society in which people live, work, relax, and shop in apartment complexes, office towers, industrial parks, stadia, and malls that stretch as far as the eye can see. It is, therefore, unsurprising that a mundane artifact of modern life — the parking space — has become a prized possession.

This case illustrates the point. The complainants, believing themselves entitle

Ours is a society in which people live, work, relax, and shop in apartment complexes, office towers, industrial parks, stadia, and malls that stretch as far as the eye can see. It is, therefore, unsurprising that a mundane artifact of modern life — the parking space — has become a prized possession.

This case illustrates the point. The complainants, believing themselves entitl

We address a question of first impression in our circuit: whether a municipal ban on tattoo parlors violates the First Amendment. Although courts in several jurisdictions have upheld such bans against First Amendment challenges, see, e.g., Hold Fast Tattoo, LLC v. City of North Chicago, 580 F. Supp. 2d 656, 659-61 (N.D. Ill. 2008); Yurkew v. Sinclair, 495 F. Supp. 1248, 1253-55 (D. Minn. 1980); St

Several owners and former owners of rental properties in St. Paul, Minnesota brought these consolidated actions, challenging the City of St. Paul’s (“the City”) enforcement of its housing code. The property owners appeal the district court’s (1) dismissal of their claims on summary judgment, (2) denial of sanctions for spoliation of evidence, and (3) denial of discovery regarding Appellee

Lowell Joseph Kuvin (“Kuvin”) appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for summary judgment, granting the City of Coral Gables’ (“the City”) motion for summary judgment, and issuing a final declaratory judgment in favor of the City. Upon en banc review, we affirm the trial court’s order upholding sections 8-11 and 8-12 of the City’s zoning code (“Zoning Code”) as a va

Plaintiffs Qualified Patients Association (QPA) and Lance Mowdy appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, the City of Anaheim‟s demurrer to plaintiffs‟ complaint. Asserting the primacy of state law over local law under constitutional and statutory authority (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7; Gov. Code, § 37100), plaintiffs‟ first cause of

The primary issue in this appeal deals with jurisdiction under the Right to Farm Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 4:1C-1 to -10.4, in the context of a private nuisance claim. Defendants Raymond L. Raub, III (Raub) and his wife Gail A. Raub own a 34 acre farm straddling Harmony and Lopatcong Townships in Warren County. In addition to that property, Raub also conducts farming operations on about 120 contigu

The plaintiff, David Greenfield, appeals
from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor
of the defendant, Susan Reynolds, zoning enforcement
officer for the town of Westport, following the court’s
granting of the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s
complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the
court improperly determined that his complaint faile

The plaintiff, The Land Group, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendants, Carl J. Palmieri, as trustee and in his individual capacity, Frank Palmieri, as trustee and in his individual capacity, Mary Gai,1 Florence Palmieri and Marie Palmieri, executrix of the estate of Vincent Palmieri. The court found that the defendants did not breach the parties’ contract f

The principal issue in this action for breach of contract is whether a commercial tenant waived its right to enforce a provision in its lease warranting that ‘‘a permanent certificate of occupancy or equivalent certificate has been or prior to Tenant’s occupancy will be issued covering the Building and permitting the use of the Premises for such purpose.’’ It is undisputed that, because

The defendant Van Zandt Williams, executor of the estate of Mary B. Zehnder, appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the appeal of the plaintiffs, Robert E. Michler and Sally Sandercock Michler, from the decision of the planning and zoning board of appeals of the town of Greenwich (board) granting the defendant’s application for a zoning variance.

The defendant claims that

The plaintiffs, Janet and Peter Saunders, appeal a decision of the Superior Court (McHugh, J.) dismissing their appeal of a decision of the Town of Kingston Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) allowing the intervenor, Konover Development Corporation, to build a Hannaford Brothers Supermarket on a parcel of land in Kingston. We affirm.

The trial court’s order recites, or the record supports

After his staff privileges at Franklin Medical Center (FMC) were summarily suspended, Dr. William Vranos, an orthopedic surgeon, commenced this action against FMC, Michael D. Skinner, R.N., who is the FMC president, and Kenneth Gaspard, R.N., FMC's director of surgical and material services. Vranos's complaint contains six counts: (I) defamation against Gaspard; (II) defamation against Skinner and