Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Emmert Industrial Corp. v. City of Milwaukie
Citation: 307 F. App'x 65Docket: No. 06-35866
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; January 6, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Emmert Industrial Corp. appeals a district court's summary judgment favoring the City of Milwaukie regarding a dispute over a property acquisition. Emmert alleged that the City’s proposal to stop the demolition of a dilapidated property in exchange for a litigation waiver constituted an “unconstitutional condition,” violating its First Amendment right to access the courts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The background involves Emmert acquiring a house under nuisance abatement proceedings and its subsequent inability to obtain relocation permits, leading the City to propose a "Final Agreement" that conditionally approved the relocation, contingent on Emmert waiving all claims against the City. The district court found that the proposed agreement did not impose an unconstitutional condition and granted summary judgment to the City. The appellate review affirmed this decision, stating that the litigation waiver was not a necessary factor in the failure of the settlement, as Emmert raised objections to other provisions in the agreement. Therefore, it could not establish the causation required for a § 1983 claim. Even if causation could be established, the court held that the waiver did not constitute an unconstitutional condition since it was rationally related to the City’s legitimate interest in resolving a protracted dispute over the property. The court emphasized that it is acceptable for the government to require a litigation waiver as part of a settlement in ongoing disputes. Additionally, Emmert's claims regarding Due Process, Equal Protection, and Takings violations were rejected by the district court but were not contested on appeal. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, indicating that the case disposition is not suitable for publication and does not serve as legal precedent.