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 »

×

August 11, 2006

We haven't done a weekly roundup for a while, and there's some new stuff out there.

Good discussion in this 6th District case about factors to be considered in deciding whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a plea.... 8th district says that in a remand solely for resentencing, trial court has no authority to entertain motion to vacate plea... 5th District holds that restitution has to be determined by the trial court at a hearing, not left for later determination... 9th District holds that officer violated defendant's Miranda rights prior to searching car based on odor of marijuana, but evidence comes in anyway under "inevitable discovery" rule...

Filing the transcript of a magistrate's hearing in the court of appeals isn't enough, the 5th District finds; it has to be filed in the trial court with the objections to the magistrate's decision... Burger King employee submits to sexual importuning by assistant manager (no "Home of the Whopper" jokes, please), judge grants summary judgment because he doesn't buy her story, 9th District reverses, says it's not his job to weigh credibility on motion... If you've got a slip and fall in a grocery store, this 10th District case affirming summary judgment on a slip on grapes is a good place to start...

I got a comment about Wednesday's post on voluntary dismissals, pointing out that under Rule 41(D) the court can assess costs against a dismissing plaintiff who refiles, staying the refiled action until the costs are paid.  (The court where the action was dismissed can't assess the costs, as this case indicates.)  Those costs do not include attorney fees, however, but only those costs allowed by statute.  Under the Federal rule, the court can assess attorney fees as a condition of granting a dismissal.

And to close things off, somedays, it's just not your day.  For the plaintiff in Knipschield v. Cleveland Inst. of Art, a Cuyahoga County case from 1994, that day was October 13, 1989, the events of which are recounted in a case from last week

In the Knipschield case, the defendant ran over the plaintiff, as he was backing out of a parking space, while she was bent over tying her shoe.  After the defendant felt his truck raise up and back down, he stopped and noticed a bystander waiving his arms. Plaintiff thought the bystander was directing him to pull forward, which he did, thereby running over the plaintiff a second time... On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals found a material issue of fact existed with respect to whether the defendant exercised reasonable care in driving over plaintiff a second time.

Apparently, the court concluded that defendant did exercise reasonable care in driving over plaintiff the first time.

Have a good weekend, and see you on Monday.

Search

Recent Entries

  • June 20, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    I come a cropper, plus inventory searches and mandatory probation
  • June 19, 2017
    Case Update - SCOTUS
    What's coming up in the US Supreme Court in the next two weeks
  • June 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    After weeks in the desert, we come upon an oasis of defense wins
  • June 7, 2017
    A switch in time
    Why what the Supreme Court did in Aalim II and Gonzales II is a bad thing
  • June 6, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A turnabout on prior calculation and design, and harmless error in all its manifestations
  • June 5, 2017
    Case Update
    A death penalty case, fourteen years after the crime, and we're just getting started. And two appellate decisions on search and seizure.
  • May 31, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    "What's a law enforcement accountability activist?" asked someone never, but the answer is here. Plus, cell phone experts, joinder, and the fading glory that was State v. Hand.
  • May 30, 2017
    Case Update
    One searches SCOTUSblog in vain for decisions which would be of interest to the uncounted hordes of this blog's regular readers; one of the Court's opinions last week deals with the Hague Service Convention's rules on international service by mail,...
  • May 25, 2017
    "Clarifying" post-release controls
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Grimes
  • May 23, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Allied offenses, and two search cases