Cleveland Law Library Weblog

Commentary on Ohio Supreme Court Sentencing Law Decision (State v. Foster)

For commentary on the Ohio Supreme Court's recent decision in  State v. Foster (Feb. 27, 2006), 2006-Ohio-856 and State v. Mathis (Feb. 27, 2006), 2006-Ohio-855, see Coverage of Ohio Blakely Ruling, What is Exactly the Blakely Remedy in Ohio?, A Prosecutor's View on Foster, and A Sentencing Judge's View on Foster all of which are on the Sentencing Law and Policy Blog.  See our prior post Ohio Supreme Court Holds Sentencing Law Unconstitutional.

Ohio Supreme Court to Create Superintendence Rules on Public Records

In a recent PD article, Chief Justice Thomas Moyer explains why the Ohio Supreme Court is in the best position to determine what information in court records should be availabe to the public.  Justice Moyer outlines some of the key rulings the Supreme Court has made in public records cases.  He also notes that the Privacy and Public Access Subcommittee of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Technology has been considering public access of court records issues for two years.  The committee's Recommendation and Report will be used to draft a new Rule of Superintendence regarding public access to Ohio court records.  Privacy and Open Records by Thomas J. Moyer, The Plain Dealer, March 14, 2006. 

Ohio Supreme Court Holds Sentencing Law Unconstitutional

In State v. Foster (Feb. 27, 2006), 2006-Ohio-856 and State v. Mathis (Feb. 27, 2006), 2006-Ohio-855, the Ohio Supreme Court held certain portions of Ohio's sentencing law unconstitutional, specifically ORC 2929.14(B) and (C); 2929.19(B)(2); 2929.14(E)(4); 2929.41(A); 2929.14(D)(2)(b) and (3)(b).  These provisions, imposed by S.B. 2, effective July 1, 1996, concern imposing maximum sentences, greater than the minimum sentences, consecutive sentences, and penalty enhancements for major drug offenses and repeat violent offenders.   These provisions require judicial factfinding, thus violating a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, per Blakely v. Washington.  The Ohio Supreme Court found these provisions severable from other portions of the sentencing law.  The result is that, "Trial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences."   See Ohio Applies Blakely and the Booker Remedy! by Douglas Berman, Sentencing Law and Policy  Blog, Feb. 27, 2006. 

Predatory Lending Legislation Will Limit Consumer Sales Practices Act Damages

While S.B. 185 proposes to apply the Consumer Sales Practices Act to mortgages, it also attempts to limit damages recoverable under the CSPA.  S.B. 185 changes ORC 1345.09 so that a consumer can only recover "actual economic damages", not "actual damages".  The issue of whether non-economic damages are recoverable under the CSPA is currently being considered by the Ohio Supreme Court.  Craig L. Whitaker v. M.T. Automotive, Inc., d.b.a. Montrose Toyota, Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2005-0331; an appeal of Whitaker v. M.T. Automotive (Dec. 29, 2004), Summit App. No. 21836, 2004-Ohio-7166.   See  Speak Up Now for Consumer Law by Sheryl Harris, The Plain Dealer, Feb. 12, 2006. 

S.B. 185 also creates increased licensure requirements for real estate appraisers, mortgage brokers and loan officers and increases disclosures, enforcement and regulation of predatory lending. For more information on S.B. 185, see:  Finally Taking on Bad Lenders , The Plain Dealer, Feb. 9, 2006.  Proposed Mortgage Rules , The Plain Dealer, Feb. 8, 2006; State Senate Bill Takes Aim at Predatory Lenders by Julie Carr Smyth, The Plain Dealer, Feb. 8, 2006.  An Overview of SB 185 from the Ohio Republican Party blog;  Senators Padgett, Carey Unveil. Senate Homebuyer’s Protection Act, Press Release, Feb. 7, 2006. 

Bill Would Increase Judicial Terms

Justice Moyer testified in favor of H.B 266, which would increase the term for judges in the state court of common pleas, appeals court and Supreme Court.  The bill would also change the qualifications for judges.  One of the changes is to increase the required number of years the person must practice law from 6 years to 10 years, unless the person has previously served as a judge for six months.  To see the testimony, go to: Ohio Supreme Court Communications Office.  Source: Ohio Judicial Conference

Alleged Fathers Can Dispute Paternity With DNA Evidence Any Time

In State ex rel Lloyd v. Lovelady (2006), 108 Ohio St.3d 86, the Ohio Supreme Court held that legislation eliminating the time limit to challenge a paternity determination with DNA evidence is constitutional.  This legislation did not interfere with the courts' constitutional right to govern court procedure.  Civ.R. 60(B) requires that motions for relief from judgment generally be submitted within one year after the judgment.  However, in prior legislation, the legislature declared that it is a substantive right, not a procedural right, to obtain relief from a child support order.  See also  No Limit on Proving Paternity by Donna J. Miller, The Plain Dealer, Feb. 2, 2006. 

Ohio Supreme Court Considers Statute of Limitations for Child Sexual Abuse Lawsuits

The Ohio Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today on when the statute of limitations begins to run for suits against a child sex abuser's employer.  The plaintiffs argue that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff discovers the employer knew about the abuse.  There is a conflict among the district courts on this issue.  Ohio Supreme Court Oral Argument Summaries:  Does Time Limit for Suing Diocese for Sexual Abuse by Priest Run from Date Child Victim Turned 18? ; Court to Hear Arguments in Statute of Limitations Case Akron Beacon Journal , Jan. 25, 2006. 

Oral Argument Heard on Private Judges Using County Courtrooms

The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the action filed by Common Pleas Court Judge Nancy Russo to prohibit private judges from using county courtrooms and juries.  The Supreme Court considered whether the use of private judges was forum shopping; whether the private judge statute, O.R.C. 2701.10, authorizes use of a jury in a private judge trial; and whether a trial court judge can refuse to hand over a case to a private judge, even if the parties agree to a private judge.  See Does ‘Private Judging’ Statute Prohibit Jury Trials, Use of Public Facilities?, Ohio Supreme Court Oral Argument Summaries; State Justices Join Debate in Lawsuit Against Private Judges for Jury Trials by James F. McCarty, The Plain Dealer, Jan. 25, 2006.  See our prior post Private Judges' Use of County Courtrooms Challenged, Nov. 17, 2005. 

Oral Argument Transcripts to Become Available Via Internet

Later this year, the Ohio Supreme Court will make oral argument transcripts available in a searchable database, as a result of close-captioning.  Source: Supreme Court Closed Captioning Will Enable Searchable Transcripts of Oral Arguments , Ohio Law Blog, Jan. 23, 2006. 

City Ordinance Requiring 2 Acre Lots for New Homes is Constitutional

The Ohio Supreme Court held that a city ordinance requiring that new homes be built on two acre lots is constitutional.  See Jaylin Investments v. City of Moreland Hills (2006), 107 Ohio St.3d 339; Ohio Supreme Court Case Summaries; Court Rules for Moreland Hills in Challenge to 2-Acre Lot Size by Tasha Flournoy, The Plain Dealer, Jan. 12, 2005; our previous post: Supreme Court to Hear Moreland Hills Zoning Case.