Justia Construction Law Opinion Summaries

A landowner submitted a site development plan to the county planning board, proposing to construct a mixed-use condominium building. Joel Broida, who lived across the street from the landowner's parcel of land, filed a motion to deny approval of the site development plan. The planning board approved the plan. Broida appealed. A hearing examiner dismissed the appeal, holding that Broida lacked standing. Broida appealed. The board of appeals (Board) split evenly on the issue of Broida's standing and decided to re-vote at a later date. The landowner then filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment, declaring that the Board's split decision was final and required the appeal to be dismissed. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the landowner. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that Broida had standing to appeal. The court therefore did not address whether there was a final Board decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) there was no final administrative decision and, therefore, the landowner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies; and (2) because there was no final administrative decision, the lower courts erred in reaching the merits of the case, and the declaratory judgment action should have been dismissed. Remanded. View "Renaissance v. Broida" on Justia Law

The Secretary of Labor cited the refinery for nine "serious" violations of the asbestos in construction standard, which prescribes protective requirements based on measurable concentration of asbestos fibers to which employees are or may be exposed. The ALJ affirmed the violations and the classification. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission reduced the classification to "other than serious" under 29 U.S.C. 666, in part because the Secretary failed to present case-specific evidence of possible employee exposure to asbestos. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded for the citations to be affirmed as "serious." Precedent only requires that there could be exposure to asbestos that is substantially probable to lead to serious harm. Applying this standard, the violations were "serious;" there is no need for case-specific evidence. If the Secretary has shown violations of regulations involving Class II work and the presence of asbestos, the burden shifts to the employer to show that the violations were not "serious." View "Sec'y of Labor v. ConocoPhillips Bayway Ref." on Justia Law

The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) contracted with Meadow Valley Contractors (MVC) for a highway construction project. MVC subcontracted the paving work to Southwest Asphalt Paving. After UDOT refused to allow Southwest to use ribbon paving and assessed MVC a thickness-laying penalty, MVC filed a compliant against UDOT, alleging that (1) it incurred costs not contemplated by the contract as a result of UDOT's prohibition on ribbon paving, and (2) the thickness penalty assessed by UDOT was unwarranted. UDOT denied MVC claims. Southwest then filed a complaint in district court in MVC's name against UDOT alleging breach of contract. The trial court (1) concluded that UDOT breached its contract with MVC by refusing to allow ribbon paving on the construction project, and (2) denied MVC's claim that UDOT had erroneously imposed a paving-thickness penalty. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) UDOT did did not breach its contract with MVC when it forbade MVC and Southwest from using ribbon paving, and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that UDOT's interpretation of the contract regarding paving thickness was more reasonable than MVC's interpretation. View "Meadow Valley v. UDOT" on Justia Law

After respondent was granted a permit by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (âMPUCâ) for routing and construction of a pipeline to deliver natural gas to an energy center within appellantâs city limits, appellant commenced an action for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to require respondent to obtain a franchise from appellant to operate the pipeline. The district court dismissed, concluding that appellant did not have franchise authority over respondentâs pipeline, and the appeals court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) a municipality is authorized by Minn. Stat. 301B.01 to impose a franchise on a public utility that has constructed and operates a gas pipeline located on public property within the municipality, regardless of whether the pipeline itself supplies gas to the public; (2) a municipality is authorized by Minn. Stat. 216B.36 to impose a franchise on a public utility that serves customers within the municipality or that uses public property within the municipality to serve customers elsewhere; and (3) the issuance of a permit by the MPUC for the construction of a gas pipeline does not preempt pursuant to Minn. Stat. 216G.02 a municipal ordinance requiring a franchise for the operation of the pipeline after construction is complete.

There was a catastrophic failure at the Spokane waste water treatment plant. One man was killed, and two others were severely injured. The survivors, including Respondent Larry Michaels, successfully sued Appellant CH2M Hill, the engineering firm that worked for the city at the time of the accident. The City of Spokane, as employer of Respondents, was immune from liability under the Industrial Insurance Act. All parties agreed that the City was negligent. The issue at trial was whether CH2M Hill was also negligent. On appeal to the Supreme Court, CH2M Hill challenged the trial judge's rulings on its liability as well as twenty-six other findings of fact. Of importance here was whether the City's immunity could be imputed to CH2M Hill under the same insurance act. The Supreme Court dissected all twenty-six points in its review, and concluded that CH2M Hill was not entitled to the same immunity as the City. The Court agreed with all rulings of the trial court. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision in the case.

L.G. Barcus & Sons, Inc. (Barcus) was held liable to the Village of Hallam under the state One-Call Notification System Act (Act) for damage to Hallamâs sanitary sewer system. The Act established a one-call notification center so that excavators can learn of any underground facilities in the area where excavation is planned. The general contractor in this case complied with the Act. Acting under its contractorâs compliance, Barcus excavated on a private landownerâs property that ultimately ruptured Hallamâs sewer lines. Among the issues Barcus raised on appeal is whether the excavator can delegate its duties under the Act to another party to escape liability. The Supreme Court found that Barcus could not rely on anotherâs compliance to excuse its own noncompliance. The Court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Respondents Dr. Rajbir Sarpal and his wife Carol purchased a parcel of property in 2003 on which they built their home. The property was encumbered by two easements reserved by the City of North Oaks for a future trail. The Sarpals wanted a shed on their property, and in 2006, went to the City to obtain the necessary permits. A City employee gave Dr. Sarpal an "as-built" survey in order to obtain the necessary permits, but the survey was dated to a time before the Sarpals' home was built. Dr. Sarpal, acting as his own general contractor, drew up the plans, submitted them to the requisite authorities, and built the shed on his property. He would later find out that the shed encroached on the City's two easements. Dr. Sarpal petitioned the local zoning board for a variance in order to save the shed, but was denied. The City sued to have the shed removed. The court dismissed all of the City's claims, holding that because the Sarpals relied on the survey given to them by the City, the City was equitably estopped from suing for the easements now. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court held that when a government entity makes a "simple mistake" when providing a document to a party upon which the party relies to obtain building permits and the government approves that permit, the mistake is not wrongful conduct sufficient to support the conclusion that the government is equitably estopped from enforcing its zoning ordinances.

The City of New Orleans appealed a jury verdict for Rosedale Missionary Baptist Church finding that the city violated the church's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by demolishing the church building without notice. At issue was whether the suit should be dismissed because the church's procedural and substantive due process claims were unripe. The court dismissed the suit as unripe where the church did not allege a substantive due process claim that was independent of its procedural due process claim and where the court could not address the procedural due process claim without knowing the outcome of the takings claim, which was not before the court.

The Town's building officials refused to issue permits to Plaintiff-Appellant Levine for two dwelling units Plaintiff wanted to build on his property. Plaintiff sued for permission to build but lost at trial and appealed, challenging the Town's authority to change its mind after considerable time and money was spent on development. Plaintiff also argueed that there were problems with the trial court's conclusion on his municipal estoppel claim. The Court found that the town properly enacted its land use ordinance, but the lower court improperly applied the law to Plaintiff's municipal estoppel claim to allow him damages for reliance on Town's initial permission to build. Starting in 2005, Plaintiff sought permission from the Town to develop a parcel of land. In 2006, the Town amended its land use ordinance to prohibit the construction of more than one dwelling on a lot, but did not expressly provide whether the revisions would apply to projects already in development. A February, 2006 meeting of the board of selectmen passed a resolution to allow Plaintiff's project to proceed; a September, 2006 meeting rescinded the February approval, and reserved the right to enforce the Town's land use ordinances against Plaintiff's project. In November, 2006, Plaintiff sought the building permits for work already in progress, and the Town refused to issue them. The Court affirmed the lower court's determination that the Town's board had authority under state law to pass the September, 2006 resolution. However, though the Court agreed with Plaintiff that he had demonstrated significant time and money was spent in developing his land. The Court held that the standard used to decide was too strict under state law, and ordered a new trial to resolve Plaintiff's municipal estoppel claim.