Case Update
Nothing happening in Columbus. I'll have a post on some key cases in the US Supreme Court on Thursday. Meanwhile, on to the courts of appeals:
Criminal. Good case on protective sweeps: defendant was holed up in house, held police at bay for three hours before surrendering, cops do a sweep after that, 2nd District reverses because there was no reason to believe anyone else was on the premises... 6th District says that two black eyes, broken nose cartilage, and being knocked unconscious constitutes "serious physical harm" for felonious assault; well, yeah... 8th District rules that defendant's robbing, kidnapping, and murder of store employees were three separate acts; three separate firearms specifications didn't merge... 8th also holds that breaking and entering ("trespass with purpose to commit a felony") is not lesser included offense of 4th degree burglary ("trespass in habitation where person likely to be present... 9th affirms suppression of evidence, says that anonymous tip of woman being held by man with gun in apartment wasn't sufficient to satisfy "emergency" exception of warrant requirement where there was nothing which corroborated tip... 3rd District affirms dismissal of indictment for sexual battery, says indictment based on "in loco parentis" theory must set forth some facts supporting that theory...
Civil. 6th District says that where business credit contract provided for award of "reasonable attorney fees" in case of non-payment, trial court erred in not awarding them... 8th District affirms grant of preliminary injunction for violation of non-compete clause... 5th District holds that trial court erred by awarding damages on default judgment without holding a hearing... Does the tolling statute, which tolls limitations period while defendant is out of state, apply to savings statute, which allows plaintiff to refile complaint within one year after non-merits dismissal? No, says 3rd District...
Finally, in a very short opinion, the 2nd District reverses a conviction for violating a protection order where the defendant called his ex-wife's house and left a voicemail message for his son. Despite fact that the order barred the defendant from calling the ex-wife's house, the court says that the son wasn't a "protected party" under the order. A more likely explanation for the outcome was appellate court nullification: they just thought it was a bullshit charge. And they're probably right.
Comments