Piercing the corporate veil in Ohio just got a little bit harder: In Dombroski v. WellPoint, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-4827 the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday modified the three pronged test announced in 1993’s Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners’ Assn. v. R.E. Roark Cos. Inc , 67 Ohio St 3d 274, 617 NE2d 1075. The Belvedere court’s second prong had permitted actions against individual shareholders when their control of the corporation was exercised in such a way as to commit “fraud or an illegal act” against the plaintiff. Subsequent appellate decisions had broadened the definition of that phrase to include “other unjust or inequitable acts.” The Court found that such an expansion ran contrary to the concept of limited shareholder liability, yet recognized that misuses of the corporate form other than fraud or illegal acts should not be protected:

“Accordingly, we hold that to fulfill the second prong of the Belvedere test for piercing the corporate veil, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant shareholder exercised control over the corporation in such a manner as to commit fraud, an illegal act, or a similarly unlawful act. Courts should apply this limited expansion cautiously toward the goal of piercing the corporate veil only in instances of extreme shareholder misconduct.”

Read the Court’s summary here.

The Ohio Supreme Court is inviting comment on a proposed amendment to Rule II of the Rules for the Government of the Bar that would expand the authority of legal interns. The new rule would permit interns to represent clients charged with felonies or juveniles in matters that would be felonies if the juvenile were tried as an adult, providing the intern is accompanied by a supervising attorney to all proceedings. Comments will be accepted until October 29. The current language permits interns to represent only in civil, administrative, and misdemeanor actions.

Criminal law students may want to take a look at the opinion in City of Maple Heights v. Ephraim, Cuyahoga App. No. 90237, 2008-Ohio-4576, , especially pages 15-19. The opinion explains the actus reus requirement for criminal cases in Ohio, and discusses when someone can be held criminally liable for the acts of another (vicarious liability). Ohio Revised Code section 2901.21 establishes that in order to establish criminal culpability, there must be either (1) a voluntary act or (2) an omission to perform an act or duty.

The Ohio Eight District Court of Appeals found that the Maple Heights parental responsibility ordinance did not require any act or omission by the parent. Maple Heights Ord. No. 648. 20, merely requires that the offender be a parent, guardian or responsible for the child's safety, and that the child committed an enumerated violation. While Ohio statutes provide for vicarious liability for corporations and for individuals in conspiracy cases, ORC 2901.21 does not generally provide for vicarious liability of an individual. The court held the ordinance invalid as in conflict with ORC 2901.20.

The Court of Appeals did not go on to address due process and other constitutional issues. The Garfield Heights Municipal Court held that the ordinance was not only in conflict with state law, but was unconstitutional. See our prior post concerning the trial court decision: Parental Responsibility Ordinance Held Unconstitutional

See also Parental Responsibility Law Voided, Terry Oblander, The Plain Dealer, Sept. 13, 2008.

As noted in the Gongwer Report (Vol. 77, #174, 9/8/08), the Ohio Dept. of Public Safety’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles announced Sept. 8^th a new system to help in emergency situations.
“Any holder of a valid Ohio driver license, commercial driver license, temporary permit or state of Ohio identification card will now have the option of providing the name and information of a contact person they wish to be notified in the event the individual is involved in a crash or emergency and is otherwise unable to communicate with the contact person.”

For information and/or to register: http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/

HB 392 was the legislation creating the database. See also Gongwer references & Ohio LSC's Final Bill Analysis.

The Ohio Supreme Court Library recently scanned in the Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Ohio: Convened January 9, 1912. Kudos to the Ohio Supreme Court for undertaking this huge scanning project of 2,000 plus pages. There are individual pdf documents for each week of the convention. These documents are searchable, as is a searchable topical index.

The 1912 Constitutional Convention proposed 42 constitutional amendments and the voters approved 34 of them. Courts today often rely on the 1912 Constitutional Convention Proceedings in deciding controversies involving the amendments added in 1912. For a recent example, see State ex rel. Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner (2007), 114 Ohio St.3d 386, paragraphs 156-171.

Thanks to Prof. Steven Steinglass for the tip, and for his help with this post.

For more information on the Ohio Constitution, see the Ohio Constitutional Law and History Web Page.

Have you ever noticed the listing of political party for a judicial candidate in the primary election ballot, and then not seen that information on campaign literature before the general election? Proposed changes to the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct would allow party designation on campaign literature before the general election. See Gongwer Ohio Report, Vol. 77, No.155, Art. 2 (Aug. 12, 2008) The announcement on the Ohio Supreme Court website mentioned that the Proposed Code has already gone through a draft and public comment, and is now ready a second time, with comments due October 17, 2008. See the Proposed Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct (in both Word and pdf formats) with Appendix A correlating the Proposed Code to the Existing Code, and Appendix B, the Existing Code to the Proposed.

You may want to compare the current and proposed codes to the ABA February 2007 Model Code of Judicial Conduct. Also see the ABA Joint Commission to Evaluate the Model Rules of Judicial Conduct webpage; the current Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct and the ABA Judicial Ethics Resources page.

For additional ethics and professional responsibility information, see our Law Library’s Legal Ethics, Professionalism and Professional Responsibility Resources page.

A bill introduced July 30 in the Ohio General Assembly would provide decorated veterans with some major support for completing their college education. HB603 would “require state institutions of higher education to waive undergraduate instructional and student fees and room and board and provide book vouchers for Ohio residents awarded the Purple Heart or other combat decorations superior in precedence.” The bill was introduced by Representative Dan Dodd (D).

First of all, in getting ready for fall, there are RTA schedule changes effective Aug. 24^th.

Second, it's not a surprise that RTA is experiencing fuel cost increases, and is projecting less revenue than needed. See the RTA 2009 Tax Budget with projected scenarios. (The Euclid Corridor Project is from different funds and is projected to be more cost efficient operationally when completed this fall.) Ridership is growing, however RTA has indicated that fares only cover about 20% of the cost of service. For costs not exceed its revenue, a legal requirement, RTA is looking at imposing a fuel surcharge (increasing the fares), and making service reductions. The Community Circulators, a service improvement on which many in our community depend, may all have to be cut, along with cuts on numerous other routes. See the list.

RTA is holding public hearings to gather testimony concerning impact of specific cuts. There was a very upset, overflow crowd at the downtown Cleveland Public Library Auditorium on Tuesday, Aug. 5^th , with many speaking after the PowerPoint presentation. RTA reserved the Auditorium at CPL for Wed. Aug. 5^th at 12 noon for additional testimony. If a cut will impact you but you cannot attend a hearing, submit your comments to RTA by Aug. 18^th.

RTA is created under the authority of Ohio Revised Code Chapter 306. For more information on documents establishing the parameters for the governance of RTA, as well as the powers, responsibilities and duties of RTA see RTA's website.

H.R. 3221 Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, signed Wed., July 30^th, Public Law 110-289, is now available - as Enrolled or Typeset

See NeighborWorks’ Summary of the new legislation and link to Senate Statement and summary .

From the President ‘s page: signing information “The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which authorizes the Department of the Treasury to purchase obligations of housing Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs); reforms the regulatory supervision of the housing GSEs; provides reform of the Federal Housing Administration; provides homeownership assistance and reforms to mitigate recent increases in foreclosures; and contains housing-related tax incentives and other tax provisions.”

While the Ohio Employer's Law Blog has been around since 2007, it's new to me! Cleveland law firm Kohrman, Jackson and Krantz, PLL, brings you "Practical employment law information for businesses in Ohio and beyond". Recent articles include "6th Circuit decides standard of proof for mixed motive cases" and All hail dads(about more men filing claims under the FMLA for family responsibilities).

They even have this handy widget which you can paste into your webpage or blog:

Today, the Sixth Circuit upheld a decision from the Ohio Northern District denying an appeal to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search conducted by a police officer who smelled marijuana and saw a partially smoked marijuana cigarette in plain view in a vehicle during a traffic stop. In U.S. v. Crumb (No. 08-3207), the Sixth Circuit stated that the officer had probable cause to conduct a lawful search of the vehicle without a warrant. The search incidentally turned up more marijuana, crack cocaine, Ecstacy pills, and a semi-automatic weapon in the defendant’s car.

The new Cuyahoga Enterprise Geographic Information System (CEGIS)
provides detailed information on houses and businesses in the county. Just type in an address or owner's name. The system combines information from the Cuyahoga County Auditor's Office and Recorder's Office. It will show the property owner, liens, how much was paid for the house, whether taxes have been paid and a detailed deed transfer history. There is a map which shows information about the property's neighborhood - census information, nearby sex offenders, nearby foreclosures and more.

The site is free, with registration. The database is still in its testing phase.

See Cuyahoga Engineer's Office Starts Up New County Map, Info System, The Plain Dealer Blog, July 14, 2008.

On Thursday July 31, 8:30 a.m. at City Hall, Cleveland's Charter Review Commission will hold a public meeting. The issues to be discussed include amending the city charter to...

• Have fewer city council members
• Change the recall rules and residency rules for city council members
• Put the Hopkins Airport director in charge of an airport police force, instead of the Cleveland chief of police.

For more details, see Cleveland Charter Review Commission Considers Ways to Streamline Government,7/19/2008, Cleveland Plaindealer Blog.

See our prior post Help Revise the Cleveland City Charter.

Find out what’s going on in Columbus with the Supreme Court of Ohio’s RSS feeds. One feed covers case opinion summaries and the other Supreme Court news. In case you’re not au courant with the intricacies of RSS, the site helpfully gives you tips on setting up a feed. Unfortunately, the Sixth Circuit has yet to syndicate their site.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court overturned a verdict against Sherwin Williams, and other paint manufacturers, which was based on the theory that lead paint is a public nuisance. See State v. Lead Industries Association, Inc., et al, No. 04-63, Rhode Island Lead-Paint Verdict Against Sherwin-Williams Overturned, Peter Krause, The Plain Dealer, Jul. 2, 2008. For an analysis of the case, see Drug and Device Law blog.

The Ohio Attorney General and several Ohio cities filed similar suits against paint manufacturers in Ohio courts. See Ohio Sues Lead Paint Manufacturers, Cleveland Law Library Blog, After these suits were filed, the Ohio legislature passed a law prohibiting public nuisance suits against manufacturers for products liability claims. Am. Sub. SB 117. You may recall that a veto of this bill by Governor Strickland was challenged in court, and the veto was held invalid. See State ex rel. Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner (Aug. 1, 2007), 114 Ohio St. 3d 386, 2007-Ohio-3780.

The Ohio Supreme Court decided this week that R.C. 2744.02(B)(3), which allows civil lawsuits against a political subdivision for injuries sustained as a result of the subdivision’s negligent failure to remove an obstruction from a roadway, does not apply to an accumulation of ice. In this case, the ice hazard was arguably created or exacerbated by actions of township fire fighters who were conducting a training exercise. See Howard v. Miami Twp. Fire Div., Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-2792.

For those who think hunting for legislative intent is just an exercise dreamed up by professors to introduce law students to obstructions, note how the Court examined the prior statute and concluded that “the General Assembly purposely replaced the phrase ‘free from nuisance’ with ‘other negligent failure to remove obstructions.’ To find otherwise is to conclude that the legislature’s action in amending the statute was a superfluous act. We are persuaded that the legislature’s action in amending R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) was not whimsy, but a deliberate effort to limit political subdivisions’ liability for injuries and deaths on their roadways.”

At 9:30 a.m. at CSU’s Cole Center, 3100 Chester Ave., the U.S. House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the House Committee on Financial Services, holds a hearing “Foreclosure Problems and Solutions: Federal, State, and Local Efforts to Address the Foreclosure Crisis in Ohio.” Here is information including the list of panelists.

First years usually learn about the "castle doctrine" in their first year criminal law class. Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed., defines the doctrine as follows:

An exception to the retreat rule allowing the use of deadly force by a person who is protecting his or her home and its inhabitants from attack, esp. from a trespasser who intends to commit a felony or inflict serious bodily harm.

The law in Ohio currently places the burden on the home occupant to prove they were defending themselves from death or serious injury. Under Ohio Senate Bill 184, which will go into effect in 90 days, it will be presumed a person lawfully occupying the home (or vehicle) acted in self defense against someone who unlawfully enters the home (or vehicle). The prosecution may rebut this presumption. The new statute also grants immunity from tort actions to the home or vehicle occupier. Ohio Becomes Latest State with NRA-Backed "Castle Doctrine" Self-Defense Law,Gongwer News Service Ohio, Vol. 77, Report #112, Article #3, June 11, 2008. Also see Ohio Governor Signs 'Castle Doctrine' Bill Despite Concerns by Law Enforcement, Toledo Blade, June 11, 2008.

Lorain County Common Pleas Court Judge Burge held that Ohio's lethal injection method involving a three drug cocktail is unconstitutional. Ohio's death penalty statute mandates that executions be quick and painless. The three drug method creates an unnecessary and arbitrary risk of a painful death. The judge held that the "combination of drugs" method:

"resulted in arbitrary abrogation of a statutory and substantive right of a condemned person, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution (due process clause)"

See State v. Rivera & State v.McCloud (June 10, 2008), Lorain County Case Nos. 04CR065940, 05CR068067; Judge Rules Ohio's Method of Execution Violates Due Process ACLU's Death Penalty page, June 10, 2008; Farkas, Karen Ohio Lethal Injection Executions Unconstitutional, Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge Rules,The Plain Dealer, June 11, 2008.

See our prior posts: Supreme Court Lethal Injection Ruling: What Does it Mean for Ohio? and Ohio Death Penalty News

Ohio amended its sexual offender registration laws to conform to the 2006 federal Adam Walsh Act. See 127th Gen Assembly, Senate Bill 10. and Senate Bill 97. The new law reclassified over 26,000 offenders, including juveniles, as sex offenders. See MacLean, Pamela A., Challenges Grow Over Sex Offender Laws, National Law Journal, June 9, 2008. The Ohio Adam Walsh Act is being challenged in a class action, Doe v. Dann, No. 1:2008cv00220 (N.D. Ohio). As reported on our Ohio Constitutional Law webpage, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Suster held that Ohio's Adam Walsh Act violates the retroactivity provisions of the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions. Evans v. State, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-08 646797. One day before Judge Suster's opinion, the Eighth District Court of Appeals decided that Ohio's Adam Walsh Act does NOT violate the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution. State v. Holloman-Cross (May 8, 2008), 2008-Ohio-2189.

 (More)

The City of Cleveland is in the process of reviewing its Charter** , and is asking for input from city residents. See the Charter Review Commission homepage. The City reviews its charter every 20 years. See the Charter, Chap. 39, Section 200-1.

The City Charter is like a constitution. It establishes the basic structure of the government, a system of checks and balances, mechanisms for accountability of city officials, and the basic civil service system for city employees. Some of the changes to the charter discussed by Charter Review Commission include:

• Changes to allow the creation of a new Airport Police Force and a new Airport Rescue and Fire Force, under the control of the Director of Port Control, not the Safety Director.
• Raising the dollar amount which city contracts must be competitively bid from $10,000 to $50,000.
• Changes to the civil service system for city employees.
• Shortening the period during which citizens can petition for a referendum on an ordinance once City Council has passed it.

See Callahan's Cleveland Diary. Also see City of Cleveland Charter Review Commission Close to Halfway Point, City Council News, April 18, 2008; Prendergast, Kevin Commission Continues to Review City Charter, Brooklyn Sun Journal, Apr. 24, 2008.

**This online copy of the Charter is as of 12/31/2007 - check the City Record for more recent updates)

 (More)

Today the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the next of kin of a deceased person upon whom an autopsy has been performed does not a have a property right in the decedent’s organs that have been removed during the autopsy. [Albrecht v. Treon, Slip Onion No. 2008-Ohio-2617 – full text opinion and opinion summary]

The case, a class action suit brought against coroners and/or medical examiners in 87 Ohio’s 88 counties, originated from a single suit involving the brain of a deceased person which had been removed during autopsy. The brain was not returned with the rest of the body to the next of kin and was subsequently disposed of after the autopsy by the coroner.

The ruling also applies to tissues, blood, or other body parts removed during the course of an autopsy.

Can dogs sue for injuries inflicted upon them? The following Ohio case held that the owners must sue on the dog's behalf:

"In this regard, the court noted that despite Boomer’s fine qualities as a dog, his status as “personalty” deprived him of the legal capacity to sue. Again, this is consistent with Oberschlake, in which we held that dogs cannot directly recover for their injuries. In particular, we stressed evidentiary problems that would arise if animals are allowed to sue directly. Id. at ¶ 18."
Pacher v. Invisible Fence of Dayton, 154 Ohio App.3d 744, 2003-Ohio-5333 at ¶21. (Thanks to Attorney Anne McFarland).

If dogs could be plaintiffs, there is already a lawyer for them! See the YouTube video, below. (Thanks to the Law Librarian Blog)

Those of you taking the First Amendment class this summer might be interested in this case:

Right to Life filed a complaint to strike down the Ohio law prohibiting the running of issue ads 30 days before an election, if the ads mention the name of a candidate running for office . See ORC 3517.1011(H) and other code sections referred to in the complaint. The suit was filed in federal court, Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 2:2008cv00492.

The complaint cites Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007), 542 U.S. 1305. 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.

Right to Life wants to air ads before the November election concerning an Ohio Senate bill banning human cloning. See SB 174 . The organization wants to mention the names of Ohio legislators who are running for office.

Source: Right to Life Files Federal Lawsuit to Overturn Ohio Law Blocking Issue Advocacy Near Election Day, Gongwer News, Volume #77, Report #98, Article #08 --Tuesday, May 20, 2008.

The summer 2008 issue of Minority Law Journal [KF195 .M56 M56] features its 2008 Diversity Scorecard, an annual survey of minority hiring at the nation’s largest law firms [complete report online].

In preparing the Diversity Scorecard, the Minority Law Journal sent surveys to the 254 firms that are listed in the Am Law 200 or the National Law Journal’s 250 or both, representing the largest firms nationally. They received a total of 211 responses. Out of these responses, here are the rankings for five law firms with Cleveland offices.

	Baker & Hostetler	Jones Day	Littler Mendelson	Thompson Hine	Ulmer & Berne
Diversity Rank	108	132	26	162	196
Minority Percentage All U.S. Attorneys	11.6%	10.1%	18.5%	7.9%	5.6%
Minority Percentage All U.S. Partners	7.8%	6.0%	10.5%	5.0%	1.1%
Total Attorneys U.S./NonU.S.	603/-	1699/668	649/-	405/4	179/-
African American Partners / Nonpartners	7/18	13/38	16/39	4/6	1/7
Asian American Partners / Nonpartners	10/14	14/68	4/26	1/13	-/2
Hispanic American Partners / Nonpartners	7/13	8/28	14/20	4/4	-/-
Other Minority / Multiracial Partners / Nonpartners	1/-	1/1	-/1	-/-	-/-

Source: Minority Law Journal: An ALM Publication (Summer 2008)

In the past, lawyers who read the newspaper or court transcripts during CLE programs were criticized as not taking CLE seriously. Recently, I attended a CLE, and everybody had their Blackberries out. It is now an accepted practice, known as "multitasking". There has been lots of discussion regarding students multitasking on their computers during class. See Multitasking in the Classroom (Law Career Blog) and our prior post, Laptops No More?

But what about multi-tasking during a court proceeding? It could earn you the wrath of the judge ....

Recently, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge David Matia noticed a defense lawyer checking his Treo wireless device while the judge was delivering jury instructions in a DUI case. The judge said he would hold the attorney in contempt unless the attorney donated $250.00 to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The defense attorney said the judge was reading something that he and the prosecutor had already agreed upon, so it was OK for him to check his Treo for his next court date. See McIntyre, Michael K., Lawyer Learns His Lesson in Kindergarten Courtroom, The Plain Dealer, May 17, 2008.

You may have seen today's Plain Dealer article about the appeal of a $800,000 wrongful death verdict, for the death of a 71-year-old mentally retarded woman. How do attorneys come up with a damages figure to present to the jury or to propose a settlement to opposing counsel?

Books such as the Economic Foundations of Injury and Death Damages (2005), KF1260.A75 E26 2005 and Trying the Wrongful Death Case in Ohio: Strategies in Preparation and Valuation, KFO539.D43 B4 2002, explain how wrongful death damages might be computed. Another interesting resource is JVR Personal Injury Valuation Handbooks, KF1256.A8 P477 ,which contains wrongful death figures based on age. Need to know how much a broken arm or cervical strain is worth? JVR also has tables of figures for various bodily injuries, corresponding to the amount of medical expenses. Of course, you can always search a database of jury verdicts, such as those available on Lexis, Westlaw and Casemaker (available on the public access workstations). Ask the librarians about these and other sources for computing damages in personal injury cases.

The Columbus Dispatch, a long-time shareholder in National City, sued to reverse the deal that provided the much-needed $7 billion to the bank. The deal allowed selected institutional investors to purchase stock at a discount and gain 70% ownership of National City. The Dispatch claims that National City's board breached fiduciary duties to long-time shareholders because the deal diluted their interests without compensation. See Teresa Dixon Murray, Dispatch Sues to Halt National City Deal, The Plain Dealer, May 3, 2008. The docket for Dispatch Printing Co. v. National City Corp., Case No. 08 CV 006506, can be viewed on the Franklin County Clerk of Court's Case Information Online.

See our prior post National City Plagued by Shareholder and Employee Lawsuits.

Despite a $7 billion capital infusion, National City's troubles are far from over. Since the first of the year, shareholders and employees have been filing lawsuits against the company in the Federal District Court, Northern District of Ohio. The lawsuits are of three different types: (1) A securities class action, alleging that the company issued false and misleading financial statements. (2) Shareholder derivative suits filed by representatives of the company on behalf of the shareholders, asserting that executives harmed the company. These suits are more about seeking corporate reforms than recovering money. (3) Suits by employees claiming that company executives violated their duties as pension plan fiduciaries by misleading employees as to the financial strength of the company.

The suits are consolidated under National City Corporation Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation, Case No. 1:2008cv07000, before Judge Patricia A. Gaughan. For a copy of the docket, current as of this morning, see natlcitydocket.pdf . More information on the case can be obtained via the court's ECF system, with a PACER account.

Source: Jay Miller, Lawsuits Still Nat City Thorn Crain's Cleveland Business, Apr. 28, 2008 (available from their site with password - password available at the reference desk. Will soon be available on LexisNexis).

The City Club Forum on Friday, May 2, 2008 will feature Cleveland-Marshall Professor and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Phyllis L. Crocker, speaking on The Rule of Law: Foundation for Communities of Opportunity and Equity, about fairness issues and Ohio’s death penalty. Information and Reservations. The City Club is at Euclid Ave. & E. 9^th, and in case you weren’t aware, it has student memberships . See CityClub.org

Dean Crocker headed the ABA team that produced the comprehensive report Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Ohio Death Penalty Assessment Report, An Analysis of Ohio’s Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices (2007). The 495 page report is available electronically.

Bar Association Law Day is in partnership with the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association (recently formed by the merging of the Cleveland and the Cuyahoga County Bar Associations).

Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Kentucky's lethal injection method does not violate the 8th Amendment. Baze v. Rees, No. 07-5439 (Apr. 16, 2008). Ohio's lethal injection method is similar to Kentucky's. The Baze decision may resolve a federal lawsuit filed by Ohio death row inmates, claiming that Ohio's lethal injection method is unconstitutional. There is also a Lorain County case pending where the trial judge is determining whether the lethal injection process amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Death penalty opponents argue that Baze does not address mistakes in the injection process that have prolonged executions. See Reginald Fields, Ohioans React to Lethal Injection Ruling , The Plain Dealer, Apr. 17, 2008, Alan Johnson, Lethal Injection Gets Go-Ahead Columbus Dispatch, Apr. 17, 2008. Reginald Fields, Supreme Court upholds Kentucky's Lethal Injection Process; Clears Way for Ohio to Move Forward with Executions.,Openers Political Blog.

For more information on the federal suit challenging Ohio's death penalty, see More Inmates Challenge Lethal Injection, Cleveland Law Library Blog.

See our prior post: Ohio Death Penalty News

Adjunct Professor Alan Rossman will speak about the case on Tuesday April 22, from noon to one, LB 202. The lunch presentation is open to the first 30 C-M students/faculty/staff who RSVP to Jason Grimes by Monday.

PBS will be airing a documentary on the Cuyahoga River, Friday, April 18th @10pm. "The Return of the Cuyahoga" will discuss the 1969 fire on the river and how that spurred enviromental reform, specifically the Clean Water Act. The special is being aired in conjunction with Earth Day.

The eagerly awaited Chancellor Eric Fingerhut’s Strategic Plan for Higher Education 2008-2017 ( Executive Summary ) and the Board of Regents’ Report on the Condition of Higher Education in Ohio: Meeting the State’s Future Needs ( Executive Summary ) are now available. Both were issued March 31, 2008. Planning within and among Ohio's colleges, universities, community colleges, technical colleges, K-12 education, the business community and government can move on to the next planning stages of this major initiative.

Eric Fingerhut, State Higher Education Chancellor, has decided against merging, Cleveland State University and the University of Akron for the time being. In its place, he has asked each school to focus on creating centers of excellence, something that all Ohio public colleges must do within his 10-year plan. His decision was based on the lack of will, not only by the universities, but also by business and civic leaders. Progress will be gauged each year at an annual meeting with the leaders of the 4 public universities. However, if he does not see progress, he will reevaluate his strategy. Chancellor Fingerhut discussed the merger issue yesterday, at the Akron Roundtable. Listen to an audio of his speech. Later this month the Ohio Board of Regents will issue their report on the condition of higher education and separately, Chancellor Fingerhut will release his strategic plan and goals for the University system over the next 10 years.

As federal law does not explicitly* prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians, it falls to the states and cities to pass such legislation. Ohio legislators recently introduced bills which aim to end discrimination based on sexual preference, HB 502 and SB 305. Republican House Speaker, Jon Husted, appears to be in favor of the bill, because, "We need to be an inviting place for a quality workforce." Source: Advocates of Anti-Discrimination Legislation Begin Drive for Passage in House, Senate Gongwer News Service, March 12, 2008. Ohio would be the 22nd State to pass this type of legislation. See Ohio Lawmakers Seek Sexual Orientation Protections Mansfield News Journal, Mar. 12, 2008 (AP article).

To find out which Ohio cities have ordinances against discrimination based on sexual preference, see Over Half the Nation Will be Covered by an Equality Law by Brian DeWitt, Gay People's Chronicle, May 11, 2007. You may want to check the ordinances of a particular city, because it is possible an ordinance was passed after this article was written.

*Note: Federal law prohibiting discrimination based on gender may possibly be utilized in a case where discrimination occurred based on sexual preference, depending on the circumstances.

There are several new resources related to this critical issue area that you may find useful:

SUBPRIME-FILING. Use this to retrieve selected trial court filings from both federal and state courts.

Earlier this month the Ohio Supreme Court announced that it has made available to Ohio courts a Foreclosure Mediation Program.

To gain a better perspective on impact related to Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, the CWRU Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development has issued Foreclosure and Beyond - A Report on Ownership and Housing Values Following Sheriff’s Sales, Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, 2000-2007 by Claudia Coulton, Kristen Mikelbank & Michael Schramm.

see U.S. General Accountability Office Report - GAO-08-78R (October 16, 2007,) Information on Recent Default and Foreclosure Trends for Home Mortgages and Associated Economic and Market Developments

<While this issue area was not his main focus, you may also want to listen to remarks by the U.S. Secretary of HUD, Alphonso Jackson, Feb. 22 at the City Club of Cleveland. A podcast of his remarks is available for listening or downloading. (Aside - you can check the list of available podcasts of City Club speakers at Podcasts. Need more info about City Club podcasts? Click here )

Cleveland Marshall's Democratic Law Organization (D-LO) held a very informative presentation today highlighting the similarities and differences between presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. For those who missed it, check out D-LO's powerpoint presentation. At the end of the presentation, links for more information are provided. There are links such as 2decide.com ,an independent source with information on both Democrat and Republican candidates.

Professor S. Candice Hoke spoke concerning how you can make sure your vote counts. One suggestion for absentee ballots was to find out how your signature is registered at the Board of Elections. For example, you may use your initial or spell out your first name. If the signature on your absentee ballot does not match the signature on file with the Board of Elections, your ballot can be rejected.

You may also want to look at Judge4Yourself.com ,which has ratings of the candidates for judicial office running in the 2008 contested Democratic primaries. (All the Republican candidates for judicial office have no opposition) Local bar associations surveyed their members to obtain the ratings.

Governor Ted Strickland issued a new Executive Order Feb.12th to implement Common Sense Business Regulation in Ohio. The press release 2008-04S and the text of the order 2008-04S list a number of fairly significant new guidelines for state agencies to follow as they review their regulations, and as they draft and prepare to submit any to JCARR. Rules under the regular 5-year review will be examined in view of these standards, with some rules likely to be reviewed sooner.

Creating this "more efficient and effective regulatory environment" should make Ohio a more attractive place in which to do business. The announcement mentioned Governor Strickland's noting that "Regulations for conducting business in Ohio exist to promote health, safety, and economic vitality."

According to the Report in the Gongwer News Service the development is a product of collaborative work of business leaders and the Governor's special representative on regulatory reform, Scott North.

Current rules: Ohio Administrative Code

Ohio 127th General Assembly HB 248 would allow companies to provide advances to persons with a pending civil claim, if the person is represented by an attorney. In exchange, the company would receive a right to a percentage of the recovery in the civil action. If the person loses their case, they do not have to pay the legal funding company anything. The House Civil & Commercial Law Committee will consider the bill on Wednesday. (House Committee Schedule). Source: House Bill Would Allow Legal Funding Advances in Ohio , Gongwer News, Feb. 1, 2008.

From Supreme Court of Ohio Opinion Summaries:

"The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled 7-0 today that an Ohio municipality does not exceed its authority under the “home rule” provisions of the state constitution by creating an automated system for enforcement of traffic laws that imposes civil liability on violators, provided that the municipality does not alter any statewide traffic regulation."

Mendenhall v. Akron, Slip Op. No. 2008-Ohio-270. This issue was referred to the Ohio Supreme Court by the federal district court. Upon return of the case to federal court, there may be constitutional due process issues left to resolve.

Recently, Medina County Courts began to post video clips of Sentencing and Contempt hearings from their General and Domestic Relations Divisions. The page provides a short summation of the facts for each case. They have named the page insidethecourt.net.

H.B. 30 , if passed, would require cities to post signs at highway exits indicating that the city is using red light cameras and/or speed cameras. The bill would also require the timing of the lights at traffic-camera- monitored intersections to conform to the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

The Ohio cities currently using red light cameras are: Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Middletown, Northwood, Springfield, Sylvania Township and Toledo; and the cities using speed cameras are: Akron, East Cleveland, Northwood and Toledo. Source: Jonathan Nawn, "Legislator Seeks to 'Raise Awareness' of Traffic Cameras", The Daily Reporter, Jan. 17, 2008. (Thanks to Marie Rehmar for this article.)

A bill from the previous Ohio General Assembly, HB 56 would place restrictions on traffic cameras, such that it would be impractical for cities to use them. Governor Taft vetoed HB 56. See Legislature Passes Traffic Camera Bill, Veto Uncertain, Cleveland Law Library Blog, Dec. 13, 2006.

The Ohio Supreme Court is reviewing whether cities have the power under the home rule provision of the Ohio Constitution to impose civil penalties for speeding and running red lights. Mendenhall v. The City of Akron, Case No. 2006-2265 Court docket & briefs , Oral argument preview, Argument video. A federal court submitted the question to the Ohio Supreme Court. After the Ohio Supreme Court decides the submitted question, there may be due process issues left for the federal court to decide.

Cleveland Marshall's Employment Law Clinic told the Ohio Supreme Court that a proposed rule allowing Ohio courts to sell records in bulk would have a negative impact on job-seekers whose records were expunged. The Clinic's comments were written by law student Thomas Fitzpatrick under the supervision of Clinical Professor Gordon J. Beggs. The comments state that a background check company that buys the court records may not update the records for later expungements. Bulk sales of records should be disallowed, said the Clinic, unless adequate safeguards can be made to ensure that background check companies keep up-to-date records.

See our prior post: Groups Weigh In on Proposed Ohio Court Record Privacy Rules

What's on the mind of a NE Ohio state university administrator these days? Probably collaborating and innovating, especially as related to the economic development of our region. The NE Ohio Universities Collaboration and Innovation Study Commission Report is now available with a number of broad and as well as specific recommendations. It also includes in Appendix D suggestions for legislative action.

To hear more about the report, attend the open panel discussion by the Study Commission members and moderated by Brad Whitehead, President of the Fund for Our Economic Future, on Wed. Jan. 23, 2008, 3-5 p.m. at the Illuminating Company (FirstEnergy) Brecksville office, 6896 Miller Rd., Brecksville. Although free, space is limited. Additional information and to register.

Gongwer News Service reports on the comments various groups have made to the proposed Ohio Superintendence Rules on court records. Groups Seek Changes in Proposed Rules for Court Records, Want Ban on Bulk Sale of Criminal Data to Business, Gongwer News Service, Volume #76, Report #252, Article #01, December 26, 2007. The Ohio Justice & Policy Center asked the Supreme Court to eliminate or modify provisions which allow the bulk sale of criminal records to businesses that conduct background checks. The Center feels allowing bulk sales will defeat the purpose of expungement laws, unless the background check businesses are required to keep their records up to date.

The Ohio Banker's League urged a system whereby dockets would be accessible online to everyone, but only certain persons or entities with passwords could look at online copies of the actual documents filed. The article also summarizes comments made by news organizations, the ACLU, the State Medical Board and background check companies.

See our prior post: Proposed Superintendence Rules Regarding Access to Court Records

The Ohio Supreme Court issued proposed Superintendence Rules which, if adopted, will govern all Ohio courts concerning the sealing of records and redacting of information. The proposed rules:

• Define "court record", and state that court records shall be made available for public access.
• Provide for partial redaction or omission of social security numbers and other identifying information.
• Provide that a party to a case, or person whom the information is about, may request that the court limit access to case information. The court can limit public access, if it finds that the presumption of allowing public access is outweighed by a higher interest" after considering a list of four factors. The court must use the least restrictive means of limiting access.
• Create a procedure where any person can request access to documents or information that has been granted "limited public access".
• Create rules for bulk distribution of court information and custom compilation of the information.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a trial court judge may decide whether Ohio's legal injection execution method is cruel and unusual punishment. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections filed a writ of prohibition with the Ohio Supreme Court, attempting to stop Lorain County Judge Burge from making a decision on the 8th Amendment issue. The Department of Corrections argued that the trial judge was overstepping his authority and only federal judges can decide the issue. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled otherwise. The Ohio Department of Corrections must now disclose its execution procedures to Judge Burge. The judge will decide the issue before the defendant's capital murder trial starts. See docket for State of Ohio ex rel. Terry Collins v. Burge, Case No. 2007-1576. Source: Reginald Fields, Lorain County Judge to Decide Legality of Lethal Injection Process,The Plain Dealer, Nov. 1, 2007.

The issue of whether certain lethal injection methods are cruel and unusual punishment will soon be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court is examining Kentucky's legal injection method, but the case will probably resolve the issue in other states as well. See docket for Baze v. Rees, Case No. 07-5439. More information is on BNA, Supreme Court Today.

In Ohio, not only is the lethal injection method under scrutiny, but the entire death penalty system. A team of Ohio legal experts, including Cleveland-Marshall Associate Dean Phyllis Crocker, found that Ohio’s death penalty system has inadequate procedures to protect defendants. The experts, working under the American Bar Association’s Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project, urged Governor Strickland to temporarily suspend executions in Ohio. See ABA News Release.

Continuing coverage of Ohio death penalty news can be obtained from the ACLU of Ohio News Center.

The Ohio Supreme Court's amended Rules of Practice requires parties filing documents in the Ohio Supreme Court to redact social security and other personal identification numbers before filing. An unredacted copy can be filed under seal, if necessary. Rule VIII, Section 6. Thus, if private information is accessed via the Supreme Court docket and misused, it is the parties' responsibility. The rule aims to avoid identity theft via online court records, such as happened with the Hamilton County online court records. See Concurring Opinions blog, Mar. 8, 2006. For more information concerning access to court records and privacy issues, see courtaccess.org.

The amended Ohio Supreme Court Rules of Practice also state that documents filed with the court are public records, unless under seal or a motion to seal is pending. Rule XIV, Section 1(B). "This provision places the burden upon the filers to review their filings with an eye toward public dissemination and, if warranted, asking the Court to seal them." Supreme Court Adopts Amendments to Rules of Practice, Court News, Oct. 22, 2007.

The amendments also permit service by email. Rule X, Section 9; Rule XIV, Section 2(B)(1).

Thanks to Marie Rehmar for the tip.

Check out live feeds of the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio Senate and House of Representatives and Governor in action on the Ohio Channel . Coverage, provided by Ohio PBS channels and the Statehouse Media Center, is unedited and commentary free, giving you an unbiased perspective. Both the Supreme Court and the House and Senate archive their sessions. The Supreme Court beginning in 2004 and the House and Senate in 1997. The Governor's Office archives the current administration.

House and Senate sessions may provide valuable insight into the legislative intent behind Ohio statutes. For additional information, see our Ohio Legal Research Guide/Legislative History .

In “Making Unpublished Opinions Precedential: A Recipe for Ethical Problems & Legal Malpractice?” (Mississippi College Law Review, Forthcoming Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1001952 ), Andrew T. Solomon posits that the trend of courts to accord unpublished opinions precedential value raises serious issues when they are not as readily available or comprehensively searchable as published opinions. The article discusses recently enacted Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which requires that federal courts allow the citation of unpublished opinions issued after Jan. 1, 2007. FRAP 32.1 does not say whether courts must considered unpublished opinions as controlling authority. The author is particularly concerned with the Fifth Circuit's requirement that unreported opinions older than 1996 are binding, as these older cases are difficult to find. See Fifth Circuit Local Appellate Rules 47.5.3 and 47.5.4.

Contrast the Fifth Circuit's rule with the Ohio rule. Unreported opinions issued after May, 2002 may be cited, and the court will determine whether the unreported decision is binding or not. The Ohio Supreme Court amended its Rules for the Reporting of Opinions in May, 2002, specifically abolishing distinctions between “persuasive” and “ controlling” opinions of the courts of appeals based on status as published or not in Rule 4 , stating:

“ (B) All court of appeals opinions issued after the effective date of these rules may be cited as legal authority and weighted as deemed appropriate by the courts…”

The Committee commentary rationale for the court’s rule states in part “The "controlling" nomenclature is primarily the historical result of an inability to physically print all court of appeals opinions, and that distinction is no longer necessary or useful (a) because many appellate judges give equal weight to published and unpublished opinions, and (b) because technology now permits all appellate opinions to be easily and readily obtained electronically.”

Thus, Ohio does not mandate that any unreported opinions be deemed controlling. It is up to the court to decide whether the unreported decision is controlling or not. Furthermore, the Ohio rule refers to cases decided after May, 2002, which are,for the most part, are available from the Ohio Supreme Court's Opinions and Announcements Search.

The Ohio Supreme Court announced that, in conjunction with the Ohio Legal Assistance Foundation, a system for voluntary reporting of pro bono work will be created. The Court rejected a recommendation by the Supreme Court Task Force on Pro Se and Indigent Litigants that pro bono reporting be mandatory. The Court also considered the Task Force recommendation that Ohio adopt a rule proposed by the American Bar Association, known as Model Rule 6.1. See Supreme Court Supports Pro Bono Legal Services by Ohio Lawyers, Ohio Supreme Court News, Sept 20, 2007.

Governor Strickland on Aug. 2nd issued a new directive establishing "The University System of Ohio." For further information, see his press release , the Directive itself (from the Gongwer site), the Aug. 2nd Gongwer article, and the new University System of Ohio website. This is a change for the environment of higher education in Ohio. More collaborative efforts are anticipated as a 10-year plan is developed by the Chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents, Eric D. Fingerhut. As indicated in the Gongwer article, the plan is not intended to change university governance, but will be a "shared plan," to establish systemwide goals and a schedule for meeting those goals.

The Garfield Heights Municipal Court struck down a Maple Heights ordinance holding parents accountable for their children's crimes. City of Maple Heights v. Ephraim (June 29, 2007), Garfield Heights Municipal Court Case No. CRB 0700016. The ordinance was held in conflict with Ohio Revised Code section 2901.21 and Maple Height ordinance 606.07. These laws specify that in order to establish criminal culpability, there must be either (1) a voluntary act or (2) an omission to perform an act or duty. The parental responsibility ordinance, Maple Heights Ord. No. 648. 20, merely requires that the offender be a parent, guardian or responsible for the child's safety, and that the child committed an enumerated violation. The Maple Heights parental responsibility ordinance lacks the "actus reus" required by Ohio law and Maple Heights city ordinances.

The ordinance is also unconstitutionally vague because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. Not every Maple Heights parent whose child was charged with a crime was cited. Additionally, the law unconstitutionally places the burden of proof on the parent, which violates due process. The ordinance requires the parent to prove, as a defense, that they adequately supervised the child.

The decision is available at the Garfield Height Municipal Court docket. Do a case number search, and type in "0700016". Page 3 of the opinion cites several law review articles discussing the legality of parental responsibility ordinances.

The Cleveland Clinic recently announced that it will no longer hire smokers, effective September 1, 2007. Vanac, Mary Clinic Will Not Hire Any Smokers The Plain Dealer, June 28, 2007. The Clinic joins Medical Mutual of Ohio and Scotts Miracle Grow, two Ohio companies that refuse to hire smokers. Scotts Miracle Grow takes it one step further by testing employees for nicotine, and terminating the employees who test positive.

A Scotts Miracle Grow employee in Boston sued when he was terminated for off-duty smoking. While some states have laws prohibiting the firing of an employee for off-duty smoking, Massachusetts does not. Pfeiffer, Sacha, Off-the-Job Smoker Sues Over Firing The Boston Globe, Nov. 30, 2006. These "lifestyle discrimination" laws typically prohibit termination of an employee for their lawful behavior outside of work. These state statutes are listed and discussed in the Employment Coordinator , KF 3315.E46, paragraph 24.1-.34, also available via Westlaw. A chart showing state anti-discrimination laws for smokers is available on the web, from an unverified commercial source: see Smoking Laws by State by hr.blr.com.

Like Massachusetts, Ohio does not have a "life style discrimination" law which would prohibit companies from terminating tobacco users. The Massachusetts case is based upon an invasion of privacy claim. In Ohio, an invasion of privacy claim would be difficult to prove in the employee smoking context. The employee would have to show a wrongful intrusion into his private activities in such a manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities. See
The Sound of Ideas: Smoke Free Applicants, WCPN Radio, July 2, 2007, comments by Professor Ken Kowalski of the Cleveland Marshall College of Law.

Further reading:

Court TV's Legal Cafe: Smoking Laws.

Simon, H. A., et. al., No smokers need apply: is refusing to hire smokers legal?. Employee Relations Law Journal v. 20 (Winter 1994-95) p. 347-67

Grasso, C. G., student author Are employers who refuse to hire smokers discriminating within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990?. St. John's Law Review v. 66 (Fall/Winter 1993) p. 1109-25

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."

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:

On Saturday, May 12^th do something different – take a tour of Cleveland’s Baldwin or Crown Water Works 10 am – 4 pm. For details see http://www.clevelandwater.com/pdf/NDWW2007a.pdf

Then later on, these links can provide additional information, including some of the legal and/or regulatory aspects, related to our drinking water.

City of Cleveland Division of Water http://www.clevelandwater.com/

U.S. EPA – Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/index.html Safe Drinking Water Act:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/publicoutreach/landscapeposter.html

U.S. EPA – Water http://www.epa.gov/water/
Region 5: http://www.epa.gov/r5water/
National Primary Drinking Water Regs – CFR – Browse to Title 40, Chapt. 141: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1

Ohio EPA – Div. Of Drinking and Ground Waters
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/
Regulations: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/oac.html

Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources – Division of Water
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/

Strategies For Protecting Your Source of Water –
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/pdu/swap_ps.html
Includes links to Model Ordinances such as

Chagrin River Watershed Partners, Inc.
http://www.crwp.org/model_ordinances/model_ordinances.htm

Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Manual – a Guidance Manual for Municipalities in the State of Ohio http://www.ccbh.net/pdf/IDDE.pdf

Drinking Water Source Protection Provisions in Ohio Rules
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/Documents/regstable.pdf

Other Water Links: http://www.clevelandwater.com/community_relations/water_links06.html

On Friday, February 23, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Peter Corrigan ruled R.C. 9.481 ( 126^th General Assembly S.B. 82), prohibiting cities from imposing residency requirements for city employees, is constitutional. The declaratory judgment in City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, Case No. 2006-590414 and State of Ohio ex rel. Cleveland Fire Fighters Assoc. Loc. 93 v. Jackson, Case No. 2006-590463 follows a February 16 decision by the Allen County Court of Common Pleas in City of Lima v. State of Ohio, Case No. CV20060518 also upholding the statute.

Drivers hoping that HB 56 would put an end to the red light camera speeding tickets were dealt a blow when Governor Taft vetoed the bill as his parting act on January 5. The Governor’s veto message stated:

"Local governments and their law enforcement agencies have the best knowledge of their streets, including the location of their most dangerous intersections. Along with this knowledge, they must have the ability and flexibility to enforce traffic laws for the safety of all Ohio citizens. Substitute House Bill 56 unjustifiably eliminates the discretion of our locally elected and locally accountable officials in favor of a one-size-fits-all method with essentially unenforceable penalties. I am especially concerned that the requirement for a permanently fixed structure to mount cameras in school zones may make it impractical for municipalities to act to protect the safety of school children. I can discern no strong public policy that warrants this sweeping preemption of local control over our local streets. For these reasons, I am vetoing Substitute House Bill 56."

Cleveland Attorney Russ Bensing’s blog, The Briefcase: Commentary and Analysis of Ohio Law, focuses on Ohio law, particularly decisions of the Eighth District Court of Appeals. He highlights criminal law, procedure, contracts and torts cases, with his personal observations on trends of interest to solo and small firm practitioners. A recent post, titled Zero Damages, compares three recent Ohio appellate decisions where plaintiffs recovered no or significantly limited damages, one despite defendant’s admission of liability, and two with controversial treatment of the pain and suffering damages issue.

 (More)

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on November 20 that Cleveland’s predatory lending ordinances violated the home rule provisions of the Ohio Constitution because they impose stronger restrictions on lenders than those enacted by the Ohio General Assembly. Am. Financial Servs. Assn. v. Cleveland, __ Ohio St 3d __, 2006-Ohio-6043. Justice Terence O’Donnell wrote the majority opinion.

The November 17 Cleveland Plain Dealer carries Professor David Forte’s analysis on the passage of Issue 5 in the recent election: More Smoke Free Than You Thought: An Unreasonable Limit on Smoking ( Friday, November 17, 2006 at B9).

The handy Ohio basic court rules sets now both come in 3 volumes: Federal, State, and Local, with an increased number of Common Pleas Courts’ rules.

Anderson’s Annotated Rules Governing the Courts of Ohio 2006-07 (LexisNexis) Reference & Reserve KFO 529 .A197 includes in Volume 2: Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, Montgomery, Stark, and Summit County Common Pleas Courts Rules of Practice.

Ohio Rules of Court 2007 (Thomson West)
Reference & Reserve KFO 529 .A2
includes in the Local volume the following counties’ Common Pleas Court Rules: Allen, Butler, Cuyahoga, Franklin, Greene, Hamilton, Lake, Licking, Lorain, Lucas, Mahoning, Medina, Montgomery, Stark, Summit, Warren, and Wood.

The Ohio Supreme Court invites comments by December 6 on its proposed amendments to Rules for the Government of the Bar, Rule I, Admission to the Practice of Law. One major change would deem an application to take the bar examination as withdrawn if the candidate does not take the exam within four years of registering, or within two years of taking and failing it. Additionally, if an applicant passes the exam but is not admitted to practice within twelve months, the rule would require submission of a supplemental character questionnaire with the Bar Admissions Office. Further changes amend provisions for appealing the Admissions Committee recommendations.

The Ohio Supreme Court invites comments by November 22, 2006 to a proposed amendment to the Rules for the Government of the Bar, Rule IV, Professional Responsibility. New Section 3 would require that lawyers make available a statement of commitment to clients and client associated responsibilities. The proposal provides a list of reciprocal expectations and duties regarding the lawyer/client relationship, stating that lawyers may use an alternate form as long as it substantially complies with the rule’s language.

Proposed new rules to implement the Ohio Homebuyer’s Protection Act, S.B. 185, are scheduled for public hearings on November 16 at 2:00 p.m. in the Rhodes State Office Tower, 30 E. Broad St., Columbus. Ohio’s Attorney General’s Office drafted the rules covering such topics as determining a consumer’s ability to repay a mortgage, recommending that a consumer default, disclosure requirements at closing, improperly influencing an appraiser, unconscionable terms in home mortgage loans, and limitations on advance payments. Read the proposed rules 109-4-3-01, and 109-4-3-19 through 30 at the OAG’s web site under Public Rule Filings, November 16, 2006.

The CSU Community now has access via OhioLINK to Gongwer News Service, whose Ohio Report is an excellent current awareness resource for Ohio legislative information. For over 100 years this company has provided independent comprehensive coverage of developments at the State House.

You can check for legislative developments, but the value goes beyond just the listing of dates and actions -- the descriptive, detailed Ohio Report gives you a better sense of what is going on. And there are links to full text, or to reports that are mentioned, or to sponsors (and from sponsors), etc. Additional features include: an Agency Calendar, Political Planner, Links to Agency Press Releases, and Ohio News Links.

Get there either via a title search on Scholar, or via the alphabetical list of OhioLINK research databases.
http://www.gongwer-oh.com/ohiolink.html

Take a look at it - I think you'll find it useful!

Menu

calendar

search

Syndicate: subscribe via RSS Reader

Subscribe Via Email

Commenting on Posts

recently...

Categories

Links

Accessible and Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS

Powered by pLog - Design by BalearWeb