Case Digests

Daily Record (Rochester, NY), Apr 4, 2008

U.S. Supreme

Court

State Boundary

Dispute

Riparian Jurisdiction

New Jersey v. Delaware

No. 134, Orig.

Background: This action follows two others previously litigated concerning the boundary along the Delaware River separating the two states. The compact that settled the dispute in 1905 determined the claims to fishing rights but not the boundary itself. Article VII provided: "Each State may, on its own side of the river, continue to exercise riparian jurisdiction of every kind and nature." This suit by New Jersey was sparked by Delaware's refusal to grant British Petroleum permission to construct a liquefied natural gas unloading terminal projected to extend beyond New Jersey's shore some 2,000 feet into Delaware territory. New Jersey argues that the 1905 compact gave it exclusive regulatory authority over all projects appurtenant to its shores due to the "riparian jurisdiction" referenced in the compact.

Ruling: The 1905 compact did not grant to New Jersey exclusive jurisdiction over all riparian improvements extending from its shores. "New Jersey and Delaware have overlapping authority to regulate riparian structures and operations of extraordinary character extending outshore of New Jersey's domain into territory over which Delaware is sovereign."

U.S. Tax Court

Depreciation

"Human Capital" --

Frivolous Arguments

Boggs v. Commissioner of

Internal Revenue

T.C. Memo 2008-81

Judge Chiechi

Background: The petitioning husband and wife had a tax year 2003 deficiency asserted against them by the IRS in the amount of $30,937 and an accuracy-related penalty of $5,041. In their 2003 return, the petitioners reported wages of $253,979 but attempted to deduct $75,000 for the depreciation of human life. The petitioner opines in a protesting memo attached to the tax return that the "human machine" should be depreciable. The petitioner argued that "the government is imposing a tax upon 'my loss of life,' and the greater my loss of life, the greater the tax imposed."

Ruling: The court notes that the petitioners proffered no evidence and advanced no argument establishing that the IRS determination in the 2003 notice was wrong. Because the petitioners continued to advance frivolous arguments despite admonishment from the court, the court imposes a $10,000 penalty on petitioners under section 6673(a)(1).

Gary Boggs and Karen Boggs, petitioners pro se, and Louis H. Hill for the respondent

u.s. district

Court, wdny

Housing

Discrimination

Emergency Housing

Centeno v. Casselman

05-CV-6489T

Judge Telesca

Background: The plaintiffs in this action moved from Florida to New York in 2005. He is from Puerto Rico and his wife is African- American. Upon arriving in New York, the plaintiffs sought housing assistance from the Newark Housing Authority and were told there was a waiting list. Allegedly, they were laughed at by the workers. They now sue under the Fair Housing Act for racial discrimination "because they could think of no other reason why they would have been denied emergency housing, or shelter in public housing." When they eventually received public housing, they were unhappy with it. The plaintiffs also obtained subsidized, private housing in Geneva, New York, and lived there for approximately one month before returning to Florida, where they currently reside.

Ruling: To establish a case of housing discrimination based on race under the Fair Housing Act, the plaintiff must demonstrate that racial animus against the protected group was a significant factor in the position taken by the defendant. In this case, however, plaintiffs have failed to establish that any adverse act was taken against them and have failed to establish that any act taken against them was motivated by a discriminatory animus. The defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

Juan Centeno, plaintiff pro se, and Paul F. Murak, of Sliwa & Lane, for the defendant

Preliminary

Injunction

Corrections Procedures

Mills v. Poole

07-CV-0351

Judge Arcara

Background: The plaintiff prisoner, pursuant to his prosecution of his suit against corrections officials for violations of his constitutional rights, seeks an injunction requiring the prison to alter its "non-privileged" mail rules. The plaintiff is using his mother, a registered nurse, as his medical expert and prison officials, not classifying her as an expert, open mail from her addressed to the plaintiff outside of his presence because such mail is not considered privileged. Non-privileged mail is limited to five pages per mailing, and as it is opened outside the presence of the recipient, plaintiff alleges that great delay and difficulty in prosecuting his claims has resulted.

Ruling: Where an injunction will alter the status quo by commanding a positive act, a movant seeking an injunction must demonstrate a clear likelihood of success on the merits and a showing of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. Injunctions seeking the performance of positive acts are more rarely granted and the court's recommendation notes the desire to avoid the judicial management of prisons. The plaintiff's motion for the injunction is denied.