Latest 2 Cases: Pederson v. Frost (Civil Procedure), Van Dusseldorp v. Continental Casualty Co. (Insurance Law)

Can A City Refuse Land-Use Permits Because it Doesn’t Like the Federal Policies the Property Will be Used to Implement?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains why a local government cannot constitutionally create policy discriminating against entities that do business with the feds. Specifically, Amar discusses a situation in which the city of Farland, California, is trying to prevent a privately operated state prison facility located in that city from contracting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Read More

Pederson v. Frost

Docket: 18-3195

Opinion Date: March 10, 2020

Judge: Stras

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

Plaintiff filed suit against several out-of-state defendants in Minnesota state court, alleging that defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme. After defendants removed to federal district court, the case was dismissed based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that plaintiff was the only connection between Minnesota and the underlying dispute. In this case, requiring defendants to litigate this action in Minnesota would offend due process because defendants' contacts were insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction.

Van Dusseldorp v. Continental Casualty Co.

Docket: 18-3257

Opinion Date: March 10, 2020

Judge: James B. Loken

Areas of Law: Insurance Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Continental, seeking damages for breach of contract, bad faith, and misrepresentation, and declaratory relief. The district court dismissed all claims, holding that TLC, the registered residential living center plaintiff had moved into, was not a covered provider. The Eighth Circuit applied South Dakota law and considered the interpretation of the Qualified Long Term Care insurance policy de novo, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Continental. In this case, the policy excluded TLC because TLC was not an "assisted living center" under South Dakota law.