The Federal Judicial Conference has approved proposed Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which would allow citing unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 2007. The proposed rule must still be approved by the Supreme Court and transmitted to Congress. See Judicial Conference News Release, September 20, 2005. Source: Cincinnati Law Library Blog.
Some cities in Ohio impose more restrictions on holders of concealed carry permits than that imposed by state law. These additional restrictions are being challenged as being in conflict with state law. For example, a Toledo parks regulation prohibits firearms in parks. A challenge to this regulation by defendant Bruce Beatty failed in the Toledo Municipal Court. Proposed HB 347 will amend the concealed carry statute to clarify that state law prevails. Source: Concealed-Carry Debate Still Leaves Both Sides Up in Arms by Robin Erb, Toledo Blade, September 19, 2005.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Bankruptcy Court's decision allowing the trustee to reopen the case. The trustee claimed that the debtors did not list personal injury claims in their schedules. The Sixth Circuit found that the debtors did list "auto accident claims" and this was sufficient to put the trustee on notice of possible personal injury claims. Also, the debtors claimed an exemption under ORC 2329.66(A)(12)(c), which is an exemption for personal injury recoveries. In re Bonner, Sixth Circuit Appellate No. 04-8101, September 6, 2005.
Cincinnati Women's Services appealed the Northern District of Ohio's ruling, which upheld Ohio's abortion restrictions. The restrictions in controversy are set out in 122nd Session, HB 421, which was passed in 1998. See our previous post Federal Court Upholds Abortion Restrictions. Cincinnati Women's Services is asking for a stay to prevent the law from going into effect until the appeal is decided. See Foe Asks for New Abortion Law Delay by Elizabeth Suh, Akron Beacon Journal, September 17, 2005.
The Ohio Supreme Court now has a searchable electronic docket available on its webpage. The docket includes cases filed in the Supreme Court of Ohio on or after January 1, 1985, and attorney discipline cases filed in the Supreme Court of Ohio on or after January 1, 1989. Currently, full text images of documents filed in the court are not available. Source: Ohio Law Blog.
Controversy has arisen over the use of private judges in civil cases. ORC 2701.10 allows parties to select a retired judge to try a case, if they provide compensation to the judge and "assume the responsibility for providing facilities, equipment, and personnel reasonably needed . . ." Private judges have been using empty county courtrooms and county jurors. Current common pleas judges object, because they often have to delay cases to get sufficient jurors. Additionally, private judges who are not visiting judges are able to act as attorneys in the same court they act as private judges. Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, Opinion 2005-8. See Discontent Over "Court for Hire" Gains Volume by James F. McCarty, The Plain Dealer, September 18, 2005.
The City of Cleveland Law Department is currently reviewing a new policy for serving search warrants. The rules will be stricter than those under state law. Police would have to call a supervisor before executing the warrant. The police must determine if there are children or elderly persons inside the location to be searched. There may be different rules regarding appropriate times to serve a search warrant. Search Warrant Rules Changing by Gabriel Baird, The Plain Dealer, September 17, 2005.
The Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court case and the Cleveland Municipal Court case which hold the Ohio domestic violence statute unconstitutional, due to the "gay marriage" constitutional amendments, are currently on appeal. State v. Burk (March 23, 2005), Cuy. CP No. CR 462510 has been assigned Cuyahoga App. No. 86317, and is currently in the briefing stage. Briefs have been submitted in Cuyahoga App. No. 86162, the appeal of City of Cleveland v. Voies ( March 23, 2005), Cleveland Muni. Ct. No. 2005 CRB 002653. HB 161, which would change the definition of family and household members, is still pending in the House Criminal Justice Committee.
According to the Cleveland Bar Association Weekly e-Bulletin, Vol.4 No. 36, September 7, 2005:
"Pursuant to Section 120.33 (A) (4) of the Ohio Revised Code, all requests for reimbursement are due to the Office of the Ohio Public Defender within ninety (90) days after the end of the month in which a case is finally disposed of or terminated. Presently extensions of time may be granted upon request. Beginning September 1, 2005, such extensions will no longer be granted. All requests for reimbursement must be submitted within the ninety (90) day period described above."