Supreme Court case announcements, 6/21/17

Just two new grants today--one of which we've discussed before.

On orders, final orders, and judgments

Perhaps no issue more consistently perplexes litigants (and sometimes, it must be said, judges) than whether a particular order is merely an order, a "final order," or a "judgment." The distinction matters a great deal, and in this case it (for now, at least) cost the plaintiff a shot at almost 8 million bucks.

Potential conflict in arbitration case

The Ninth District has just released a decision in Kelsey v. Carrington Homes, Inc., in which it held that a trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing before compelling the parties to arbitrate a dispute.

This holding appears to conflict with that of at least one other appellate district, and may be a candidate for review by the Supreme Court as a certified conflict.

First District roundup

Last week the First District issued two decisions worth mentioning--one civil and one criminal.

Supreme Court case announcements, 5/31/17

The Court has accepted two new cases.

Justice DeWine's concurrence in Aalim II

Yesterday I noted Justice DeWine's concurrence in Aalim II, and promised to write a bit more. And so--as I see Justice DeWine jog down the street past my office window--here is that post.

The majority opinion in Aalim II is a rejection of a due-process challenge to Ohio's statutory scheme providing for mandatory bindover of juveniles to common pleas court if certain factors are met.  Justice DeWine agrees with the conclusion that the scheme is in fact constitutional, but writes separately to emphasize his belief that the Court has conflated procedural and substantive due process standards.

Stick with me--this is more interesting than you might think.

State v. Roberts - death sentence affirmed on third appeal

Today the Court announced its decision in State v. Roberts, a death penalty appeal that had made two prior trips to the Supreme Court. In the first appeal, the Court vacated the death sentence because the trial judge had engaged in improper ex parte communications with the prosecutor, and had allowed the prosecutor to assist in drafting the sentencing opinion. In the second appeal, the Court vacated the death sentence because the trial court had (apparently) failed to consider the defendant's allocution.

This time, the Court affirms. Justice O'Neill concurred in the judgment affirming the conviction, but dissented as to the imposition of the death penalty (as he now always does). Chief Justice O'Connor concurred in the judgment only.

This blog has previously covered the case of Roberts's co-defendant, Nathaniel Jackson, whose conviction and sentence were affirmed last summer.