Recently in Ohio law 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.

From the site: "2009-0079 and 2009-0311.  State v. Horner, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3830...
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-3830.pdf

...In a decision announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio overruled its 2008 decision in State v. Colon and ruled that:
            1) An indictment that charges an offense by tracking the language of the criminal statute is not defective for failure to identify a culpable mental state when the statute itself fails to specify a mental state. 
            2) When the General Assembly includes a culpable mental state in one discrete clause, subsection, or division of a statute, but not in another discrete clause, subsection, or division of the same statute, courts must apply the analysis prescribed  in the Supreme Court's decisions in State v. Wac (1981) and State v. Maxwell (2002) to determine the necessary mental state where none is specified.
           3) By failing to enter a timely objection to a defect in an indictment, a defendant waives all but plain error on appeal."

Read full text

Source: The Supreme Court of Ohio, 27 August 2010

This post was written by the library staff: "The process of awarding child support in Ohio is a mess, and it has needed a fix for a very long time. Once parents finally receive an award, it never grows despite inflation, and the numbers they receive are very, very low. Some custodial parents also get saddled with high expenses for health care and insurance. My informal survey of divorced child support recipients shows that they all receive the same amount, despite ex's with different incomes, and many have to pay all costs for health insurance, which is not inexpensive. The drive behind S.B. 292 explains why. According to Senator Smith (D-Cleveland), the courts are still awarding support based on figures from 1992, and there are no escalators in the law for inflation. All that and more could change, hopefully for the better, with S.B. 292. As a starting point, before adjustments, an average child support recipient from a divorcing couple with a combined income of about $150,000 would receive about $5,000 more per year. Even that modest increase would help a lot of mothers, who the stats have shown experience a reduced standard of living when they get divorced."

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

Source: Cleveland Law Library Weblog, 26 August 2010. Reproduced with permission by Kathleen Sasala.

From the site: "2007-1261 and 2007-2425.  State v. Ketterer, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3831...

Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-3831.pdf

View oral argument video of this case.

...The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that in capital murder cases where a trial court is required to file a separate sentencing opinion setting forth the court's specific findings regarding a death sentence, a "final appealable order" consists of both the court's judgment of conviction filed pursuant to Criminal Rule 32(C), and its sentencing opinion filed pursuant to R.C.2929.03(F)."

Read full text

Source: The Supreme Court of Ohio, 25 July 2010

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 Chuck Kellendorf:  "The Columbus Dispatch, Wednesday morning, had two mentions of bills that have been introduced in the Ohio Senate we found of interest.

Senate Bill 22 (article) (bill analysis)

"'We are at a crisis in the state of Ohio,' Ohio ACLU legal director James Hardiman was quoted as saying, in releasing 'Reform Cannot Wait,' a report examining the cost and impact of prison incarceration and spending from 1991 to the present... It summarized the findings of other reports over nearly two decades and reached the same conclusions: Ohio sends far too many people to prison, spends an inordinate amount of money on adult and youth prisons, and has done little to reduce crime and recidivism..."

Senate Bill 291 (Dispatch's article)

Introduced by Sen. Shirley Smith, Senate Bill 291 would "preclude civil actions against an employer for failures to do a criminal background checks, prohibit an employer from inquiring into the criminal history of a job applicant until the applicant has been selected for an interview, or refuse to hire a job applicant because the applicant committed an offense unrelated to the job..."

Full text and active links are available by clicking on the author's name.

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

This post was written by Chuck Kallendorf: "Taking action in response to the decision by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals last month in Carey v. Wolnitzek that struck down similar rules in Kentucky, the Ohio Supreme Court has amended portions of two of its Rules of Judicial Conduct governing disclosure of political party affiliation and solicitations of campaign contributions by judicial candidates.

The Court's announcement, yesterday, said in the "Comment portion" of revised Rule 4.2, the Justices adopted language urging judicial candidates to minimize references to their party affiliation in campaign materials, while revised Rule 4.4 contains an explanation of the continued need for a prohibition on the personal solicitation or receipt of campaign contributions.

The amendments became effective today.

Text of Amendments

To reach the blog post and the active links, click on the author's name.

Source: Hamilton County Law Library Blog, 12 August 2010. Reproduced with permission.

This post was written by the library staff: "Starting September 1, 2010, new UPL rules for Ohio will allow the Ohio Attorney General to help the Ohio Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel and bar associations prosecute cases involving the alleged unauthorized practice of law. Click here to read the Press Release, and click here to read the text of the new rules."

To reach the blog post and the active links, click on the author's name.

Source: Cleveland Law Library Weblog, 3 August 2010. Reproduced with permission by Kathleen Sasala.

This post was written by Chuck Kallendorf: "The Ohio Supreme Court on July 6, 2010 adopted amendments to the Rules for the Government of the Bar relating to the Unauthorized Practice of Law (Gov. Bar R. VII), effective September 1, 2010, except Section 2(A)(1)(e) which will be effective January 1, 2011.

Section 2(A)(1)(e) is the "granted permission to appear pro hac vice by a tribunal in a proceeding in accordance with Gov. Bar R. XII and rendering legal services in that proceeding." [ Rule XII Pro Hac Vice amendments adopted Sept. 1, 2009, becoming effective Jan. 1, 2011 ]

Also becoming effective September 1st 2010 is the Supreme Court's Gov. Bar R. VI, governing the Registration of Attorneys.

Court's announcement re Gov. Bar Rules VI and VII
Text of Pro Hac Vice amendments ( Gov. R. XII )"

To reach the blog post and the active links, click on the author's name.

Source: Hamilton County Law Library Blog, 2 August 2010. Reproduced with permission.