Weekly roundup
Supreme Court upholds a death sentence; significant issue is the judge's partial closure of the trial -- he cleared the courtroom of all but the media for the cross-examination of one witness and the examination of two others. Decision has a good summary of the criteria to be used in determining whether that violates defendant's right to a public trial. Guess which way that one came out? But only by 4-3...
9th District holds that failure of defendant to include presentence report in record on appeal leaves court "no choice but to presume the validity of the trial court's factual findings in support of appellant's sentence"... 8th District holds that numerous acts of false billing committed over a seven-month period, even though contained in a single indictment, does not constitute a single offense for expungement purposes.... Aggravated robbery and theft are not allied offenses, 3rd District rules... 5th District finds that defendant's consent to search wasn't voluntary; good discussion of that issue, and of standard to be used by court in reviewing trial court's ruling...
Great plaintiff's case from the 9th District, reversing trial court's grant of summary judgment in slip-and-fall case, with discussion of attendant circumstances and open and obvious doctrine; I'll have a full article on this next week... 3rd District upholds denial of motion to vacate where opposing expert exaggerated his qualifications, stating that 60(B)(3), allowing judgment to be vacated for fraud, applies only to fraud by opposing party, not witness... There are lawyers out there who still don't realize this? Plaintiff files a complaint, the complaint's dismissed in October, plaintiff file a motion for reconsideration, court denies motion in December, plaintiff then files notice of appeal in January, 5th District dismisses appeal as untimely because -- all together now -- there's no such thing as a motion for reconsideration in the trial court... Although court can set zero bond for preliminary injunction, 6th District rules that failure to include any provision for bond in journal entry renders injunction a nullity, and defendant can't be held in contempt for violating it...
Say this three times real fast. The first line of the 9th District decision mentioned above, on the open and obvious doctrine:
Appellants, Bethel and Robert Marock, appeal the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, which granted summary judgment in favor of appellees, Barberton Liedertafel and Liedertafel Damen Skektion Kranken Unterstuetzungs Verein, Inc., on appellants' complaint.
Here's betting that Liedertafel Damen Skektion Kranken Unterstuetzungs Verein, Inc. has never had to worry about tradename infringement.
Comments