July 8, 2006
Let's see what happened during the week...
5th District affirms grant of grandparent visitation over objection of mother, good discussion of criteria court should use... 8th district holds GAL fees ordered as child support not dischargeable in bankruptcy... 10th district affirms grant of summary judgment, holding that absence of handrail on one side of steps in bar was "open and obvious," despite dim lighting... 1st District reverses defense verdict in medical malpractice case for improper conduct of defense counsel, marking fourth time that this court has reversed this lawyer on this basis... 2nd District reverses summary judgment in workers comp case where plaintiff injured crossing street to employee parking lot; extended discussion of "coming and going" rule...
12th District holds that defendant's speedy trial rights violated by, among other things, court taking 252 days to rule on motion to reconsider its ruling on motion to suppress; case discusses just about every possible aspect of speedy trial... Good discussion by 11th District of when court should sua sponte consider incompetency of defendant... 2nd District reverses court's refusal to permit defendant to withdraw plea to non-support, holding that court should have considered defendant's argument that he lacked ability to pay, since that was a defense to charge... 6th District joins six other districts in holding that Gay Marriage Amendment doesn't bar prosecution of cohabitants for domestic violence, something I discussed a while back...
And, if you've thought it might be fun to be an appellate court judge, take a look at the assignment of error by the pro se defendant in this case:
The Trial Court Erred in Granting Summary Judgement ; the State Has Pleaded Gulity at the Appellate Court Level, Reversed and Remanded Case No. 83572, 2004 Ohio 2696. In the Court of Claims the State Denies All Issues Catagorically , on October 19, 2005 Pre-screening Entry the Court Sua Sponte Amends the Caption Joseph Hardy Vs. Belmont Correctional Institution, Et. Al., under 2743.02 of the Revised Code Section 2743, Where the State Has Pleaded Guilty to Double-jeopardy Reversed by the Appellate Court the Plaintiff Has Met the Burden of Proof, the Court Errs after These Matters Had Been Set for Trial to Entertain Summary Judgement Without Journal Entry Without Leave Civ. Rule .5704 Set Forth in Loc. Rule .2101. Counsel of Record Was Not Jana M. Brown Rule .1802, the Court Failed to Qualify the Expert Witness after the Expiration Date October 24, 2005 Civ. Rule .56(e) Summary Judgment Would Be a Direct Conflict There must Be a Settlement Minimum a Fair Trial. Thereby Violating the Plaintiff Rights of Equal Protection and Due Process as Guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 § 2 and § 10 of the Ohio Constitution Where the State Had Plead Gulity to Double Jeopardy Codicil (In Pari Delicto) a Judgement Which Includes Usurious Interest Is Erroneous § 1343.04.
The court observed that "appellant's brief is basically unintelligible."
By the way, that wasn't the only assignment of error.
Comments