Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Good days, bad days
  • Can I get a [expert] witness?
  • A new rule of law? Not quite
  • What’s Up in the 8th
  • Case Update
  • Case Update
  • Back to the Future
  • Manson lives
  • What’s Up in the 8th
  • Tinkering with the machinery of death


  • Archives

  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006


  • Case Update

    December 1st, 2008

    As might be expected, the Supreme Court Nine found it more fitting to engage in the traditional holiday gluttony than to provide me with cases to write about.  The cholesterol-laden Court will have oral argument this week in the Phillip Morris case out of Oregon (previous discussions on this blog here).  The Court has vacated the $79.5 million punitive damages award against the tobacco company twice before, but each time it’s been reinstated by the Oregon courts. 

    Speaking of the Supreme Court, the LA Times ventures some guesses on whom President Obama might pick for the Supreme Court, and another commentator suggests that Obama might break with recent tradition and select a non-judge for the Court.

    Nothing from the Ohio Supreme Court last week either, so let’s get to the courts of appeals…

    Criminal.  Cop stops car for excessive tinting of windows and no license-plate light, sees him making “suspicious movements,” 1st District says that’s enough to permit search of car console for weapons, even after defendant is handcuffed and placed in back of police cruiser… 10th District says that overnight guest had standing to seek suppression of evidence found in search of apartment… Defendant supposedly shot into house, tries weapons disability counts to judge, felonious assault and firing into habitation charge to jury; jury acquits, judge convicts, 8th District finds no inconsistency in verdicts… 6th District says that defendant not entitled to separate trials just because he wants to testify as to one offense and not the other… 3rd District says that trial court within rights to only give defense counsel a summary of pre-sentence investigation report, holds further that issue is not appealable under RC 2951.03… Defendant convicted of 1st, 2nd, and 4th degree felony trafficking counts, sentenced to 24 years; 3rd District reverses, says convictions were only for 4th and 5th degree felonies because jury verdict form did not specify degree or aggravating factor…

    Civil.  8th District reverses grant of summary judgment in products liability case, says that fact plaintiff did not read warnings does not show he cannot establish that inadequacy of warnings proximately caused his injuries; excellent discussion of law on failure to warn… 6th District says that defendants entitled to have cost of discovery deposition transcripts which were filed with court taxed as costs… 7th District rules that court cannot grant a previously-denied motion for summary judgment without prior notice to parties… 6th says that where one party seeks to enforce a settlement agreeement, court must hold a hearing to determine whether valid agreement existed…

    kennedy.jpgI’m holding out for the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Action Figure.  Yeah, if you’d been a smart guy, you would have rushed over to E-Bay to put in your bid on the Anthony Kennedy Bobblehead Doll. 

    No, I am not making this up.

    All in a day’s work.  In State v. Zacharias, based upon the gross sexual imposition victim’s claim that the defendant had shaved his penis and testicles, the police obtained a warrant to photograph the penis.  

    One Response to “Case Update”

    1. Lionel Hutz Says:

      This one’s better:

      http://www.greenbag.org/bobbleheads/scalia.php

    Leave a Reply


    Search Posts




    Court Links

    Cuyahoga County
    Court of Appeals
    General Division
    Domestic Relations
    Juvenile
    Probate

    Ohio Courts
    Supreme Court
    Geauga Common Pleas
    Lake Common Pleas
    Lorain Common Pleas
    Summit Common Pleas

    Links to all Ohio Courts

    Ohio Revised Code

    Federal Courts
    Supreme Court
    6th Circuit
    Ohio Northern District
    Ohio Southern District



    Law Blogs

    Sentencing Law & Policy
    Volokh Conspiracy
    CrimLaw
    Grits for Breakfast
    Concurring Opinions
    Simple Justice
    A Public Defender
    Defending People
    CrimProf Blog
    How Appealing
    Lowering the Bar
    Crime and Consequences
    Drug War Rant
    Snitching Blog
    Overlawyered
    Balkinization
    Legal Blogwatch
    ScotusBlog

    Ohio Law blogs

    Jeff Gamso's Blog
    Cleveland Law Library
    6th Circuit - Criminal
    6th Circuit - General
    Bullseye Blog (PI law)
    Ohio Family Law Blog
    Ohio Employment Law Blog
    Ohio Practical Business Law
    Ohio Environmental Law Blog
    Other Ohio law blogs


    Criminal Defense Bars

    Ohio (OACDL)
    Cuyahoga County (CCDLA)
    National (NACDL)


    Legal Discussion Forum

    Attorneys Forum - Legal Help and Law Discussion Forums.


    Blogfinder

    Law Blog Metrics



    lawyer blogs