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

  • November 15, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Plea withdrawals (again), sexual predator hearings, and an appellate law question
  • November 7, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Don't listen to prosecutors about the law, good new/bad news jokes on appeal, and the Byzantine course of a death penalty case
  • October 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Trying to change the past
  • October 16, 2017
    En banc on sentencing
    The 8th District takes a look at what State v. Marcum means
  • October 13, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Musings about the death penalty and indigent defense
  • October 11, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS starts its new term, and the Ohio Supreme Court hands down two decisions
  • October 10, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Collaboration by inmates, fun in Juvenile Court, the limits of Creech, and more
  • October 5, 2017
    State v. Thomas
    The Ohio Supreme Court reverses a death penalty conviction
  • October 4, 2017
    Russ' Excellent Adventure
    A juror doesn't like me. Boo-hoo.
  • October 3, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    What not to argue on appeal, waiving counsel, the perils of being a juvenile, and expert witnesses