Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

July 1, 2006

On the front burner for today's discussion is the Ohio Supreme Court decision from last week holding that the "agricultural" tax valuation of land requires the non-timbered portion to meet the statutory criteria.

Okay.  Maybe not.  We now resume our regular programming.

Which is the weekly roundup.  The 5th District finds no intentional tort where resident of YMCA shot and killed employee, despite claim that YMCA should've known "of the risks inherent with working with residents who were criminals, mentally ill, drug addicts and alcoholics" (don't remember the Village People mentioning that); this is in keeping with cases making it virtually impossible for employer to be held liable on intentional tort theory for criminal acts of third persons, Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co, 40 OSt3d 190 (1988)... Good discussion in this case from the 1st District regarding court's power to enforce a settlement agreement... Court can still order spousal support while Chapter 13 bankruptcy case pending, says the 5th District... Despite higher standard of care, common carrier not liable for slip and fall on ice and snow on bus, says our court. 

And a nomination for Understatement of the Year (final award in December) goes to the 8th District in this case:

The court identified several of Wife's inappropriate behaviors with respect to her children: bringing the children to the courthouse to pass out a book she had written about the injustice of the court system and her divorce; telling the youngest child that "daddy broke up our home" and "the devil lives in daddy;" blatantly violating a court order to enroll the children in a traditional school, which caused the children to enter school one month late and hampered their transition from home schooling to traditional schooling; continuing to nurse Cleutus, contrary to medical advice, even though his teeth were rotting; and, refusing to engage in any written communication with Husband regarding the children. The court also noted that it had 'great concern about the emotional stability of [Wife].'

I'd guess.

Have a good weekend.

Search

Recent Entries

  • April 26, 2017
    MIA
    Like Mark Twain, rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Except I am pretty sure he's actually dead, while I am not, and for that matter, nobody's spreading rumors that I am. Great lead, huh? The nice thing about...
  • April 20, 2017
    The Supreme Court takes a look at the trial tax
    And you thought this was the week you only had to worry about income taxes
  • April 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Remembering Warren Zevon, and the Fourth Amendment lives
  • April 17, 2017
    Case Update
    Structural error, prejudice, and police run amok.
  • April 13, 2017
    Some arguments on sentencing
    Why oral arguments can be fun, even when they're not yours
  • April 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Oh fun: declarations against interest v. non-hearsay. Also, the difference between not guilty and innocent, and Ohio's statute penalizing the refusal to take chemical test in a DUI case goes bye-bye
  • April 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Filibusters, and appellate cases on all the ways lawyers can screw up.
  • April 7, 2017
    Change of course
    A new approach in my client-attorney relationships
  • April 4, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A true rocket docket, and Anthony Sowell pops up again
  • April 3, 2017
    Case Update
    Free merchant speech, an argument on Brady, another look at Creech