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.

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.

Supreme Court elections official

First District judges Pat Fischer and Pat DeWine have officially won the elections for the seats being vacated by Justices Paul Pfeiffer and Judith Ann Lanzinger, respectively. Fischer narrowly defeated Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge John O'Donnell--O'Donnell only conceded the race this past week--and will be sworn in on January 1. DeWine, who earned a sizeable victory over Judge Cynthia Rice of the Eleventh District, will be sworn in on January 2.

Fifth District: procedendo issued

The Fifth District has issued a writ of procedendo requiring the Morgan County Common Pleas Court to rule on the relator's petition for post-conviction relief. The motion was filed in August 2015 and had not yet been ruled on, despite Superintendence Rule 40(A)(3)'s requirement that motions be resolved within 120 days of filing. The court did observe that litigants have no private right to enforce that rule, but the rule nevertheless bears upon the question of whether the court "has unduly delayed" in issuing a ruling. The case is State ex rel. Smoot v. Favreau.

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.