Peter Martin loses appeal against City of Eureka over prayer lawsuit

Link to appellate courts.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2093911&doc_no=A143621

The Appellate court dismissed and ruled against Carole Beaton and her lawyer Peter Martin in their appeal of Judge Watson's decision to uphold and allow invocations before City Council meetings.

Eureka City Frank Jager said, "We won this one."

Link to my community comment on KINS on this topic.
http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2014/07/my-kins-community-comment-on-prayer.html?m=1

Link to TS story on the lawsuit.
http://www.times-standard.com/general-news/20141107/eureka-prayer-lawsuit-ruling-appealed

Excerpt from decision:

Filed 9/21/15  Beaton v. City of Eureka CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

CAROLE BEATON,             Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF EUREKA et al.,             Defendants and Respondents.

A143621       (Humboldt County       Super. Ct. No. DR130058)

            Plaintiff Carole Beaton sued the City of Eureka and the city’s mayor, Frank Jäger (collectively, the City), claiming the City’s policy allowing persons to offer invocations or prayers at council meetings violates provisions of the California Constitution regarding the separation of church and state.  She appeals the trial court’s order granting the City’s motion for summary judgment and finding the City’s written invocation policy to be valid.  While this action was pending, the City replaced the contested invocation policy with a new one, purportedly based on a recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Because the policy plaintiff challenges in this appeal has been rescinded and replaced, we conclude her appeal is moot.  We therefore dismiss the appeal.

I asked local attorney Allan Dollison to elaborate on California Rule of Court 8.1115 (a). He said, "This means the case will never be published which means that it cannot be relied upon by others in Court for precedent. Since it was dismissed as Moot, which literally means the controversy or practice complained of no longer exists such as the Court of Appeals did not need to make a decision thus they punted. A dismissed appeal as moot is of little precedential value because it is unique to the facts of this case. On the other hand, the Plaintiff can claim credit as being the inciting factor for the change that ultimately got the appeal dismissed."