Service of process abroad

In December I wrote about the First District's decision in Richardson v. Clinical Computing PLC, in which the court held that a treaty (the "Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters") permitted service of a complaint and summons by regular mail in the United Kingdom. I also noted that there was a split of authority on the question.

Today the US Supreme Court resolved that split, holding in Water Splash v. Menon that the treaty does indeed permit service of process through regular mail.

A tip of the cap is due to former First District Judge Peter Stautberg, who nailed the analysis in his decision.

Supreme Court case announcements, 5/17/17

Five new accepted cases today: one appeal by the Public Utilities Commission, one pro se criminal appeal, one parental rights case, one arbitration case, and one counseled crim pro case. The announcement is here.

Your patience is appreciated...

I am back from my vacation. Yosemite National Park--you've got to see it to believe it.

No new grants while I was gone. I will dive back in with some updates from the courts of appeals soon.

Supreme Court case announcements, 4/19/17

Today's Ohio Supreme Court orders list includes three new accepted cases.

Stay granted in Vontz v. Miller

Vontz v. Miller is an interesting First District decision that I noted in late December but did not have an opportunity to discuss. The named parties are each 50% shareholders of Dayton Heidelberg Distributing Co., and their litigation concerned a shareholder impasse. The trial court issued injunctive relief requiring the shareholders to attend a shareholder meeting, but the First District reversed in part, holding that the trial court exceeded its authority.

Case update: Myocare v. Hohmann and conditional dismissals

Earlier this year I wrote about Myocare Nursing Home, Inc. v. Hohmann, in which the Eighth District dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The parties had stipulated to a "conditional dismissal" of a compulsory counterclaim, but the appellate court ruled that Ohio law doesn't recognize conditional dismissals, and that as a result the counterclaim remained pending in the trial court and the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.

Tenth District: no jurisdiction over appeal from denial of motion for reconsideration

The reason being, of course, that motions for reconsideration of a final judgment simply don't exist under the Civil Rules. Denials of motions for reconsideration therefore can't be final orders, and the court of appeals has no jurisdiction over appeals from non-final orders.

But there is a lot more going on in this case.