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.

Monday, May 22, 2017

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.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

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.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

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.

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

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.