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.
Commentary on cases, decisions, and orders in and from the Ohio Supreme Court and courts of appeals from attorney Jeff Nye. Not affiliated with any court.
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
Monday, June 5, 2017
First District roundup
Last week the First District issued two decisions worth mentioning--one civil and one criminal.
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
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.
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.
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.
Monday, May 29, 2017
Court reverses itself in State v. Aalim
Last week the Court granted a motion to reconsider its December 2016 decision in State v. Aalim, and reversed its prior holding.
Friday, May 26, 2017
Double jeopardy clause bars ethnic intimidation charge
On Wednesday the Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Mutter, an appeal from the Fourth District concerning whether a prior no contest plea and sentence for aggravated menacing precluded a later indictment for ethnic intimidation. The Court holds that it does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)