It’s hard to feel any sympathy for those who prey on our children.

In keeping with public sentiment, courts tend to give elected officials broad leeway when it comes to restricting the movement of sex offenders in the community.

So it comes as something of a surprise when yesterday the highest courts in two states put a stop to controversial methods that are increasingly being employed across the country to keep sex offenders from finding more victims.

The New Jersey Supreme Court struck down two local ordinances that banned sex offenders from living near schools, parks, or other places where children gather.

The court, in G.H. v. Township of Galloway, decided the case on the narrow ground that the local bans were preempted by the state’s Megan’s Law. The ruling effectively invalidates similar laws in more than 100 other towns across the state.

According to The Associated Press, the New Jersey case is the first of its type to reach a state supreme court. 

In another case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court narrowed the scope of a state law authorizing the use of global position system (GPS) devices to track sex offenders.

The court, in Commonwealth v. Raposo, decided that a statute requiring the GPS monitoring of certain sex offenders on probation applies only to those offenders who have been placed on probation after being convicted of the crimes, not to those on “pretrial” probation.

As in the New Jersey case, the court in Raposo was careful to avoid the larger constitutional questions regarding a sex offender’s freedom of travel.

— Pat Murphy

patrick.murphy@lawyersusaonline.com

Nothing brings back fond (and not so fond) memories of law school like a good old-fashioned real property case.

There’s a nostalgic air when one strolls the well-trod paths of Black Acre and White Acre. On the other hand, mention the rule against perpetuities and my mind still runs and hides like a small child.

Unlike the old real property class, most real-life disputes relate to insurance coverage, commercial leases and zoning. In this regard, state courts have recently answered some important questions involving the rights of property owners:

Apartment building is insured for excavation damage: New York’s highest court has decided that policy exclusions for “earth movement” and “settling [or] cracking” did not preclude coverage for damage to an apartment owner’s building that resulted from an excavation on an adjacent lot. (Pioneer Tower Owners Association v. State Farm Fire & Casualty)

Condominium purchaser can’t sue for fraud: A purchaser who complained of various design and construction defects in a condominium apartment can’t bring a common-law fraud claim based on alleged material omissions from disclosure statements required by state law, New York’s highest court has ruled. (Kerusa v. W10Z/515 Real Estate Limited)

Condominium association can prohibit rentals: A condominium association could amend its bylaws to prohibit the rental of condominium units, according to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. (Apple Valley Gardens Association, Inc. v. MacHutta)

City can’t be sued for retaliatory condemnation: An Oklahoma city is immune from claims brought by a §1983 plaintiff who alleged that officials had commenced proceedings to condemn his property in retaliation for his having won a quiet-title suit against the city, the 10th Circuit has ruled. (Sable v. Myers)

Tenant is co-insured under landlord’s fire insurance: A Delaware trial court has decided that a tenant is a “co-insured” under its landlord’s general fire insurance policy for the limited purpose of shielding the tenant from a subrogation claim by the landlord’s insurance carrier based on the alleged negligence of the tenant. (Hartford Insurance Co. v. Community Systems, Inc.)

Homeowners policy doesn’t cover damage caused by collapsed swimming pool: The Idaho Supreme Court has decided that a “household appliance” provision in a homeowners policy doesn’t provide coverage for damage to a dwelling caused by the collapse of an above-ground swimming pool. (Armstrong v. Farmers Insurance Company of Idaho)

— Pat Murphy

patrick.murphy@lawyersusaonline.com

The open warfare between the religious right and the secular left took a new twist Friday when a federal judge in California decided that a public school teacher violated the First Amendment when he made disparaging remarks about Christianity in the classroom.

The judge found that James Corbett — a 20-year veteran of the Capistrano school district — violated the Establishment Clause when he made a critical comment concerning Christianity in his high school European History class.

Corbett allegedly referred to creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense.”

United States District Judge James Selna wrote that he could not “discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.”

On the other hand, the judge ruled that Corbett engaged in permissible academic discourse by commenting that “when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”

The good news for §1983 plaintiffs is that the case demonstrates the potential for a cause of action against teachers who feel they have the license to gratuitously demean the religious beliefs of students.

The bad news is that Judge Selna found that the school district could not be liable for the Corbett’s violation of the First Amendment — demonstrating just how problematic it could be to recover money damages in such cases. (C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District)

In another ruling from the school yard, an Alabama judge has decided that a mother and father could not force school officials to let their two sons do their school work from home because of the swine flu scare. (Associated Press)

— Pat Murphy

patrick.murphy@lawyersusaonline.com