Showing posts with label mootness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mootness. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

State v. Blair dismissed as moot

Today the court dismissed State v. Blair, which was noted as a newly accepted case in this blog post from May. The issue in Blair related to record-sealing, formerly known as "expungement"; an applicant is not eligible for sealing if she has a "pending criminal matter" at the time of the application. Blair's application was denied because she was on community control for a different offense at the time she applied. The question presented to the Court was whether community control constituted a "pending criminal matter." (The trial court and the First District had held that the answer was yes.) The State moved to dismiss the case as moot, because Blair's community control period was terminated earlier this year, and the Court agreed.

The State preemptively argued that the case was not capable of repetition yet evading review, because while Blair's community control was relatively short (one year), Ohio law authorizes community control period of up to five years, so the issue was bound to be raised eventually in another case. We'll keep our eyes open for that one.

Monday, June 5, 2017

Monday, September 12, 2016

A different approach to determining appellate jurisdiction

In Bank United v. Klug, the Ninth District reaffirmed the well-settled rule that the journalization of a nunc pro tunc order which merely "correct[s] minor typographical errors" does not extend the 30-day notice-of-appeal filing deadline provided for in Appellate Rule 4(A). Here, the order was entered on January 6, a nunc pro tunc order was entered on January 22, and the notice of appeal was filed on February 19--28 days after the nunc pro tunc order, but 44 days after the original order. The appeal thus was untimely, and was dismissed.