Recently in Court action Category

This post was written by Chuck Kallendorf: "While traffic cases in Ohio municipal and county courts -- constituting 42 percent of new filings -- was at its lowest mark since 2000 with 1,259,095 filings, a 7 percent decrease from 2008, more than 300,000 new cases were filed in Ohio's 330 mayors courts in 2009 following a four-year decline in that venue. Just the opposite.

The Supreme Court's 2009 Mayors Courts Summary, released last Friday, reported "The total new filings for all case types increased by 6 percent over 2008, mainly due to a 7 percent year-over-year increase in 'Other Traffic' cases, which includes any traffic cases other than OVI (operating a vehicle while under the influence) cases..."

Continue reading this interesting post and reach the active link by clicking on the author's name.

Source: Hamilton County Law Library Blog, 30 August 2010. Reproduced with permission.

Podcast description from the site: "In the recent case of State v.Huggett, failure to preserve voicemail data resulted in the dismissal of a second degree murder charge. On this edition of The ESI Report, host Gina Jytyla, Managing Staff Attorney in the Legal Technologies division at Kroll Ontrack, welcomes Circuit Court Judge James Babbitt from Barron County, Wisconsin who authored the original opinion in the case and Jason Paroff, Senior Director of Computer Forensics for Kroll Ontrack, to discuss the duty to preserve electronic data  and exculpatory evidence such as text messages, voicemail and social media. In the Bits & Bytes Legal Analysis segment, Kroll Ontrack Legal Correspondent Kelly Kubacki explores the recent decision of Crispin v. Audigier, Inc. regarding the discoverability of information contained on social networking sites.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 38:55 -- 28.3MB)

Related Podcasts

June 18, 2010 -- Early Case Assessment, Cost Savings & Privilege Problems

July 27, 2010 -- Decade of E-Discovery, Compliance Challenges & Privacy

July 15, 2010 -- Legal Issues Surrounding Social Media

May 21, 2010 -- Cloud Computing, Data Breaches & Case Update

April 30, 2010 -- Finding Clients for your New Practice

Active links and podcast are available at the source site listed below.

Source: Legal Talk Network, 24 August 2010. © 2010 · Legal Talk Network. Reproduced with permission of Scott R. Hess.

This post was written by Chuck Kallendorf: "The Ohio Supreme Court publishes two reports annually: the Ohio Courts Statistical Summary, which, this year, examines data from Ohio courts for the years 2000 to 2009, and the Ohio Courts Statistical Report. Raw data is published in the Statistical Reports, while the Summaries analyze the data from the reports and identifies trends.

"Marked by a decrease in new traffic filings, last year saw the lowest total number of new cases filed in Ohio courts in 10 years," the newly-released 2009 release reported yesterday.

Other notable trends from the report include:..."

Continue reading this interesting post and reach the active links by clicking on the author's name.

Source: Hamilton County Law Library Blog, 20 August 2010. Reproduced with permission.

This post was written by the library staff: "The National Center for State Courts has just released its 2010 edition of Future Trends in State Courts. According to the Press Release, the focus of this report looks at "court reengineering"-which evaluates court operations with the goal "to improve processes and save money while increasing efficiency and maintaining service levels to the public." The report gives concrete examples of states that are tackling this project through changes in service structures, technology and much more..."

Continue reading this interesting post and reach the active links by clicking on the author's name.

Source: Hamilton County Law Library Blog, 22 July 2010. Reproduced with permission.

From the site: "2009-0580.  Erwin v. Bryan, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2202...

Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-2202.pdf

View oral argument video of this case.

...The Supreme Court of Ohio today ruled that the rules of civil procedure do not allow a claimant to designate defendants using fictitious names as placeholders in a complaint filed within the statute-of-limitations period and then identify, name, and personally serve those defendants after the limitations period has elapsed..."

Read full text

Source: The Supreme Court of Ohio, 25 May 2010

This post was written by Michel-Adrien Sheppard: "U.S. Federal Judiciary launched a radical redesign of its website recently.

As part of the redesign, it even created its own YouTube channel.

Other law-themed YouTube channels I have come across include..."

Continue reading this interesting post and reach the active links by clicking on the author's name.

Source: Slaw.ca, 20 May 2010. Reproduced with permission of Simon Fodden, founder of Slaw.

In the news: "Attorney Leonard Deutchman has reviewed federal court decisions that applied the "plain view" doctrine of the Fourth Amendment to law enforcement engaged in computer searches. He now looks at a 9th Circuit decision which rejected the doctrine and analyzes the pros and cons of both views."

Read full text

Source: Law.Com's Daily Legal Newswire. 19 May 2010. Copyright 2009.  ALM Properties, Inc. All rights reserved. Subscribe  <http://store.law.com/registration/register.asp?subscribeto=nw>.

This post was written by Chuck Kallendorf: "Anna Christensen and Stanford's Alex Harris at ScotusBlog, last Tuesday reported on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Renico v. Lett , No. 09-338.

"At issue in the case," they summarized, "was the trial judge's decision to declare a mistrial in respondent Reginald Lett's first trial on first-degree murder charges. Neither Lett nor the state had asked for a mistrial on the record; after four hours of deliberations, the jury had sent the judge a note asking what would happen if it could not agree. In his second trial, the jury found Lett guilty. He appealed, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited the state from trying him again. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed and reversed his conviction, but it was then in turn reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's holding nearly two hundred years ago in United States v. Perez, that court reasoned that a new trial after a mistrial does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause as long as there was a 'manifest necessity' for the mistrial, as reflected by the trial judge's exercise of its 'sound discretion'; moreover, the Michigan Supreme Court noted, the U.S. Supreme Court has subsequently held that appellate courts must generally defer to the trial judge's determination that the jury is deadlocked."

Continue reading this interesting post and reach the active links by clicking on the author's name.

Source: Hamilton County Law Library Blog, 6 May 2010. Reproduced with permission.

12-Year Time Limit for Filing Child Sexual Abuse Suits Does Not Stop Running Based on Repressed Memories

Limitations Period Begins to Run on Victim's 18^th Birthday

From the site: "2009-0953.  Pratte v. Stewart, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1860.

...Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-1860.pdf

View oral argument video of this case.

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that 2006 legislation unambiguously sets a 12-year statute of limitations (time limit) for the filing of civil lawsuits based on childhood sexual abuse that occurred after the Aug. 3, 2006 effective date of that legislation and applies that same 12-year limitations period to the filing of suits based on abuse that occurred prior to Aug. 3, 2006, if no prior claim has been filed and if the limitations period under the previous version of the law had not expired before the new law took effect..."

Read full text

Court Rules Nurse Does Not Hold 'Position of Trust' That Would Bar Her From Intervention Program

For First Offense Theft of Drugs from Hospital Where She Was Employed

From the site: "2009-0825.  State v. Massien, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1864.

...Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-1864.pdf

View oral argument video of this case.

...The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that a nurse employed in a hospital, who steals drugs in the course of her employment, does not occupy a "position of trust" and is not categorically ineligible for Intervention in Lieu of Conviction (ILC)..."

Read full text  

Source of both: The Supreme Court of Ohio, 5 May 2010

Court Rules Collateral Source Statute Does Not Bar Evidence of Write Offs on Plaintiff's Medical Bills

Where Reduced Fees are Result of Plaintiff's Medical Insurance Coverage

From the site: "2009-0820.  Jaques v. Manton, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1838.

...Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-1838.pdf

View oral argument video of this case.

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that the defendant in a personal injury lawsuit is not barred by Ohio's collateral source statute from introducing at trial evidence of "write offs" accepted by medical service providers that reduced the actual cost of the plaintiff's medical treatments to a lower amount than those providers originally billed for their services..."

Read full text  

Prior DNA Test Not 'Definitive' If New Testing Method Can Detect Information Old Test Could Not

Case Returned to Trial Court to Determine if Other Criteria for Granting New Test Also Met

From the site: "2009-0605.  State v. Prade, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1842.

...Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-1842.pdf

View oral argument video of this case.

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that under R.C. 2953.74, a state law that allows prison inmates to obtain new DNA testing of evidence from their trials under certain conditions, a prior DNA test is not "definitive" when a new testing method can detect information that could not be detected by the prior DNA test."

Read full text

Public Policy Does Not Bar Defendant's Insurance Policy from Covering Plaintiff's Attorney Fees

When Fees Awarded by Jury as a Result of Punitive Damages Award

2009-0325.  Neal-Pettit v. Lahman, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1829.

...Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-1829.pdf

View oral argument video of this case.

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that an award of attorney fees in a civil lawsuit is distinct from an award of punitive damages, and the public policy of the state does not prevent an insurance policy from providing coverage for attorney fees when they are awarded solely as a result of an award for punitive damages."

Read full text

Source: The Supreme Court of Ohio, http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ 4 May 2010