CMLawLibraryBlog

So Many Books, So Little Time...Well that's the case made at the Public Services Desk. So to help manage all your due dates, the University Library will be emailing courtesy notices to your CSU email account 3 days prior to your book coming due. This does not apply to our video collection, being it's only a 7 day loan. You may ask yourself...self why is this important?

As some of you may or may not know, you have 2 email addresses. Once you are enrolled in CSU, a CSU email address is created...Looks something like this...j.mathewson@csuohio.edu...(fill in your name where mine appears). Fear not, you can still receive emails from CSU by forwarding your CSU email to your CSU LAW email.

Allow me to walk you through the process...
Log into your CampusNet

https://campusnet.csuohio.edu/index.jsp

Under your Personal tab, click on Email...you should see your CSU email with an option to forward....Click on forward...enter your Law Email address in the box and then save.

By doing this, not only will you receive your courtesy notices (including Ohiolink notices) but any other emails sent from the University keeping you informed as to what's happening on your campus.

If you should have any questions, please stop by the Public Services Desk. We'd be happy to help!

Some 15 years after filing a Freedom of Information Act action, the CIA released the report requested by George Washington University's National Security Archive. Today's post contains a link to the entire 27 MB, 702 page item as well as links to NSA's split of the report into five parts.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act could not prohibit a corporation from financing ads concerning an issue, aired near election time, when the ad could reasonably be interpreted as something other than an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. No. 06-969, Slip Op.(U.S.S.C. June 25, 2007). Commentators view this case as an example of the Supreme Court's shift to the right, due to personnel changes. See Mark Sherman (AP), High Court Signals Rightward Tilt, The Plain Dealer, June 26, 2007. For summaries of other cases demonstrating the conservative shift in the court see Supreme Court Actions,The Plain Dealer, June 26, 2007.

Ohio and Cuyahoga County in particular have faced numerous election controversies and problems. One example concerns ads run by a group called "Common Sense Ohio", making negative statements against Ted Strickland during the 2006 race for governor. See John McCarthy, Who is Paying for Attack Ads?, Cincinnati Enquirer, Sept. 8, 2006; Court Rules That It Lacks Jurisdiction to Decide Campaign Finance Disclosure Dispute, Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries, Oct. 3, 2006. Numerous articles have pointed out problems with the managing of elections in Cuyahoga County and troubles with voting machines. See Center for Election Integrity - Press Coverage.

The Center for Election Integrity a joint project of the Cleveland- Marshall College of Law and the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, aims to eliminate these problems. According to its web page, the Center "provides research, training, consultation, and public education to assist Ohio in becoming the national leader in transparent, legal, efficient and accurate elections."

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision reminds us that attorneys must look to statutes and court rules for jurisdictional deadlines, not court personnel - not even a judge. While sometimes statutes and court rules provide judges with discretion to extend a deadline, other times they do not. A firm deadline with no discretion was the case in Bowles v. Russell No. 06-5306, Slip Op. (U.S.S.C. June 14, 2007). The Supreme Court held that a deadline for an appeal firmly established by a statute could not be extended, even though the attorney relied upon the trial court's order. The trial court's order erroneously indicated the defendant had more time to appeal than the statute allowed.

The case involved an appeal of the federal Northern District of Ohio's decision denying habeas corpus relief to a defendant convicted of murder. The defendant missed the initial deadline for an appeal, but a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. 2107(c), allowed the district court judge to grant a 14 day extension. The district judge's order granting the extension erroneously indicated that defendant had until February 26 to appeal, which was a 17 day extension. The Sixth Circuit held the appeal was untimely, because it was not within the 14 days allowed by 28 U.S.C. 2107(c).

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's decision. The Supreme Court stated that the appeal deadline was firmly set by Congress and Congress provided no exceptions in the statute. The appeals court had no ability or discretion to waive the untimely appeal. Congress may establish exceptions for unique circumstances or excusable neglect, but the court can not create such exceptions. Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc. (1962), 371 U.S. 215 and Thompson v. INS (1964), 375 U.S. 384 were overruled, "...to the extent they purport to authorize an exception to a jurisdictional rule."

Also See Elizabeth Auster, Justices Say "No" in Painesville Murder, The Plain Dealer, June 15, 2007.

The IRS has released the draft of the redesigned Form 990, Return of Organizations Exempt from Income Tax.

According to the June 15, 2007 Chronicle of Higher Education news article "Draft Version of Revised Tax Form for Nonprofit Groups Includes Questions About Governance and Pay," by Grant Williams, there hasn't been such a significant redesign of the form since 1979. According to the IRS site, the three guiding principles in the redesign were "Enhancing transparency, promoting tax compliance, and minimizing burden on the filing organization." Comments may be made until September 14, 2007. For information and the redesigned form, schedules, and instructions see: http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=171216,00.html

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that the statute of limitations for a claim for discriminatory pay under Title 7 begins to run on the date the discriminatory decision was made, not when the last discriminatory paycheck was issued. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Inc No. 05-1074, Slip Op. (U.S.S.C. May 29, 2007). The statute of limitations is 180 days or 300 days, depending on the state. Ledbetter received poor performance evaluations because of her sex, and as a result her pay was lower than her male counterparts' for years. The Supreme Court held that these performance evaluations occurred earlier than 180 days before filing with the EEOC, so Ledbetter could not recover. Ledbetter did not argue that the decision makers acted with actual discriminatory intent when they issued each check.

A Law.com article discusses alternative strategies for future plaintiffs in Ledbetter's situation. Measuring the Impact of High Court's 'Ledbetter' Ruling, Carla J. Rozycki and David K. Haase, 6/13/2007. The suggestions include an Equal Pay Act claim or an argument that the pay system was adopted to discriminate on the basis of sex and the discriminatory system was applied within the 180 day period.

House Democrats vow to introduce legislation, which will establish that the statute of limitation begins to run upon each payment of a discriminatory wage. See House Democrats Say Time Limit on Pay Discrimination Lawsuits Should be Changed, Jesse J. Holland, 6/13/2007, Law.com.

The Ohio Supreme Court held that “false light” invasion of privacy is now a cause of action in Ohio. Welling v. Weinfeld , 113 Ohio St.3d 464, 2007-Ohio-2451. Ohio courts previously did not recognize a false light cause of action. False light is one of the four categories of invasion of privacy claims identified in the Restatement of Torts 2^nd, Section 652A. The elements of a false light claims are set out in Restatement of Torts 2^nd, Section 652E. The elements of the claim are:

• The actor publicizes a matter concerning another.
• The publicity puts the other person in a false light before the public.
• The false light is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
• The actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard to the falsity of the publicized matter, and the false light in which the other would be placed.

The Welling decision discusses two recent cases from other states, one which rejected a cause of action for false light, and one which allowed the cause of action. The court also distinguishes between defamation and false light invasion of privacy. The court points out situations where a defamation action would fail, but there would be a cause of action for false light. Welling also found that there are adequate First Amendment protections for false light defendants.

The court noted that a false light tort is needed in the Internet age, because anyone can make a matter known to the public.

Also see Court Recognizes "False Light" Invasion of Privacy, Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries:

• Main
• Archives
• Folders
• Dashboard
• Links

«	June 2007					»
Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30

Search This Blog:

• RSS 2.0

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

• It's October, and Time for the Supremes!
• New Treaty Bans Use of Cluster Munitions
• MP3's of Your Assigned Class Readings. Audio Case Files is Here.
• Government Bailout History
• Friedman & Gilbert Criminal Justice Forum: Jonathan Turley, Thurs. Oct 2, 5 p.m.
• Finding Study Aids in the Library
• Ouch! Tougher to Pierce the Corporate Veil
• You Oughta Be In Pictures
• Review Outlines...Already?
• Make Mine a Latte

• Career Information [31]
• Community Events [15]
• Faculty Teaching and Scholarship [49]
• From The Director [4]
• Government Information and News [23]
• International [31]
• Law Library News and Events [58]
• Law Student News [23]
• Law-Zarro [19]
• Legal Research & Writing [108]
• Library Resources and Databases [67]
• National [81]
• Ohio and Local [68]
• Speakers and Visiting Scholars [15]
• Study and Exam Tips [19]

• Blog Directories
  • Law Professor Blogs
  • Law X.0: A Taxonomy of Legal Blogs
  • Justia Blog Search
  • Blawg Republic
• Blogs by C-M Professors
  • Comparative Racism and the Law - Canada/U.S.
  • Before the Law
• Blogs for Law Faculty
  • Legal Scholarship Blog
• Blogs for Law Students
  • The Frugal Law Student
  • JD2B
  • WishIWouldHaveKnown
• Blogs of General Legal Interest
  • SCOTUS Blog
  • Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
  • Ohio State Supreme Court News
  • Wall Street Journal.com Law Blog
  • Above the Law
  • Law School Innovation
  • Supreme Dicta
  • The Volokh Conspiracy