Supreme Court grants ANOTHER writ of prohibition against Judge Robert Ruehlman

For the second time in five months, the Supreme Court has granted a writ of prohibition against Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert P. Ruehlman.

Rule 60(B)(4) - when does it apply?

Rule 60(B) provides for relief from a final judgment on certain specified conditions, including mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, and fraud or misrepresentation. Subdivision (4) provides for relief if "the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged," and honestly, it's never been clear to me when or why that might warrant the vacature of a judgment. I understand why a judgment might be noted as "paid" or "satisfied," but why should that be grounds for relief from the judgment? The Second District has an answer, though not necessarily an entirely satisfying one, in Kossoudji v. Stamps.

Supreme Court case announcements, 11/9/16

The Court announced that it has accepted one new jurisdictional appeal, has accepted one new certified conflict, and has granted one motion for reconsideration and accepted a jurisdictional appeal that was previously denied.

Supreme Court case announcements, 10/26/16

The Court has accepted two new cases for review.

When is a hospital employee acting within the scope of employment?

If a hospital employee accesses a patient medical record for a reason having nothing to do with treatment of the patient and then unlawfully discloses that information, is the hospital liable for the employee's actions? No, says the First District.

Does Dendrite International apply in Ohio?

What standard must a court apply when a plaintiff seeks to use the subpoena power of the court to identify an anonymous speaker on the internet? There is not yet a consensus to this important question in Ohio, but earlier this week the First District--my home district, filled with good judges with whom I very rarely disagree--bucked the national trend by declining to apply the standard from Dendrite International v. Doe. In my opinion this case was wrongly decided, and does not adequately protect the constitutional right to anonymous speech. This is a subject in which I'm very interested; see here for video of my participation in a panel last week at the Ohio State Bar Association's Law and Media Conference.

Update: we have filed an amicus brief in support of Doe's jurisdictional appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

"Replevin action regarding parrot"

In Carlton v. Johnson, the Fifth District affirmed a trial court's judgment that the plaintiff was not entitled to replevin of a parrot.

The Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions describes the issues of the case as "Replevin action regarding parrot/Manifest weight."

That is all.