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

  • September 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Prior consistent statements, whether State v. Hand is applied retroactively, and a big Coming Attraction
  • September 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Looking back at Melendez-Diaz, and the 8th goes 0 for 2 in the Supreme Court
  • September 8, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Pro bono work, screwed-up appeals, and is Subway shorting their customers?
  • September 5, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    The barriers to expungement, jury verdict forms, and hybrid representation
  • August 31, 2017
    Constructive possession
    Constructive possession is 9/10ths of the law
  • August 29, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A traffic stop found Samson Primm in possession of a few grams of marijuana, but he hires a lawyer and files a motion to suppress the stop. On the day of trial, the City asks to dismiss the case. Primm...
  • August 28, 2017
    Truth in plea bargaining
    So I got a brochure last week from Judge Donnelly over at the Common Pleas court. As you can see, it's a panel discussion on plea bargaining. The judge asked me to get out the word, so I just sort...
  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions