Showing posts with label brief filed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brief filed. Show all posts

Monday, February 6, 2017

Brief filed: Stewart v. Vivian

Today we filed our reply brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the appellant in Stewart v. Vivian. You can read the brief here.

Stewart relates to the proper interpretation of section 2317.43 of the Revised Code. The docket is here. Our merits brief was filed in November, and the appellee's brief was filed last month.

The case is scheduled for argument on Thursday, April 6.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Brief filed: R&R Family Investments v. The Plastic Moldings Corp.

Today we filed a notice of appeal and a jurisdictional brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the appellant in R&R Family Investments v. The Plastic Moldings Corp., et al. You can read the brief here.

At issue in the case is whether a property owner owes a duty to people outside the land with regard to naturally occurring conditions of which the owner has actual knowledge. More particularly, our brief asks the Court to accept the appeal in order to adopt Section 54 of the Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm.

Monday, December 5, 2016

Brief filed: Fisher v. Doe

In October I criticized the First District's decision in Fisher v. Doe because it declined to adopt and apply the Dendrite test, which provides rules for when an anonymous speaker can be unmasked. Doe has appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, and today Tom Haren and I filed an amicus brief in support of jurisdiction, on behalf of our client Alexandria Goddard. Alex was the blogger who earned fame (or, perhaps, notoriety) in 2012 for investigating and blogging the social media posts made by students attending a party at which two Steubenville High School football players raped a teenaged girl.

Our brief can be read here. In it Tom and I urge the Court to recognize that both the Ohio and US Constitutions protect the rights to speak anonymously and remain anonymous, and that the Dendrite test is best suited to protecting those constitutional rights, while still allowing for meritorious claims to proceed. Most importantly, Dendrite requires plaintiffs to make a showing of merit before unmasking the anonymous speaker. Any rule that allows unmasking before a demonstration of the existence of a meritorious claim improperly prioritizes a common law claim (defamation) over a constitutional right (anonymity).

The plaintiff's response to the jurisdictional briefs is due in January.

Update: the Court has declined jurisdiction in the case.

Monday, November 28, 2016

Brief filed: Stewart v. Vivian

Today we filed a merits brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the appellant in Stewart v. Vivian.  You can read the brief here. The supplement is here.