- Is police use of a drug-sniffing dog on the porch of a house, to investigate an unverified tip that marijuana is being grown in the house a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes? See Florida v. Jardines, 2013 WL 1196577 (U.S. 2013), discussed in Section 1:14 of this book.
- Will an outstanding warrant save an illegal stop where, at the time of the stop, the officer was unaware of the warrant? See State v. Gardner, 2012-Ohio-5683, 984 N.E.2d 1025 (2012), discussed in section 15:17.
- Is a questionable affidavit for a search warrant to search for child pornography on a computer sufficiently bolstered by cyber tips from Yahoo? See State v. Eal, 2012-Ohio-1373, 2012 WL 1078331 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. Franklin County 2012), appeal not allowed, 132 Ohio St. 3d 1515, 2012-Ohio-4021, 974 N.E.2d 113 (2012) discussed in Section 7:6.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Recent developments covered in the 2013 edition include:
Friday, May 24, 2013
Recent developments in the 2013 edition include:
- Discussion of rulingsof the National Labor Relations Board as to whether widely observed employer practices impermissibly restrict concerted activity by employees in violation of federal law. See section 2:4.
- The decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v. City of Youngstown, 133 Ohio St. 3d 174, 2012-Ohio-4247, 977 N.E. 2d 582 (2012), in which the court held that an employer had an affirmative responsibility to provide an employee notice of the employee's discharge within a reasonable time after the discharge occurred, to avoid impeding the discharged employee's 90-day notification oblications under the Ohio statute governing the time limit for an employee to provide written notice to an employer of a worker's compensation retaliation claim against the employer. See section 3:36.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
New features and recent developments in release #28 include:
- United States v. Skinner, where the Sixth Circuit held that a court determines whether a defendant's resasonable expectation of privacy has been violated by looking at what the defendant is disclosing to the public, and not what information is known to the police. (see section 2:21)
- United States v. Tapia, in which the Eighth Dicruit held that the United Parcel Service agent's decision to hold a package in the office and invite a detective to inspect it did not fall within Fourth Amendment protection. (see section 2:7)
- United States v. Cowan, where the Eight Circuit upheld a vehicle search when an officer used the alarm button on key fob-seized during the execution of search warrant on an apartment for evidence of drug trafficking -- to identify a parked car. (see section 11:3)
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
New features and recent developments in this edition include:
- Discussion of State v. Dumas, 2012-Ohio-91, 2012 WL 112994 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Court 2012), in which an OVI conviction was upheld despite the defendant's plea of not guilty by reason of insanity due to dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder). See section 1:31.
- An updated discussion of Ohio law relating to the expungement or sealing of OVI convictions, and the impact of a prior or subsequent OVI conviction on an application to have a recored of a non-OVI criminal record sealed. See Section 16:31.
- A new section (9:74) containing a flow chart illustrating common grounds for suppression of evicdence on OVI cases.
Monday, November 26, 2012
New features and recent developments in the 2012-2013 edition include:
- An updated section (2:9) on finality in criminal cases
- A new section (2:28) on finality of orders addressing petitions for post-conviction DNA testing
- Coverage of rule changes affecting service obligations (1:43), reporting of appellate decisions (1:49, 1:50), attachment of authorities to briefs (5:19), and identification of oral-argument panels (5.32)
- Expanded discussions of post-judgement and post-appeal jurisdiction in the trial court (1:16), mootness and ripeness on appeal (7:2), preserving error in magistrate cases (7:5), and the time to appeal in certain administrative cases (9:48)
- A new section (7:6) on invited error
- A thoroughly revised discussion (2:8) on Civ.R. 54(b)
- A reort (7:21) on the recent clarification of the standard for a manifest-weight challenge in a civil case
- An explanation (5:3) of new important brief-filing requirements in certain districts
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Ohio Supreme Court Publishes Interactive "Planning for Parenting Time: Ohio’s Guide for Parents Living Apart"
The Ohio Supreme Court has published an interactive guide entitled "Planning for Parenting Time: Ohio's Guide for Parents Living Apart." According to the Court's news release, this guide is "child-centered" and "provides guidelines for parenting time schedules... and customized options and ideas to structure parenting time based on the child’s age, the level and civility of the parents’ interaction and the daily schedule parents and children maintain." Specifically, the guide "contains at least 20 different parenting time options with sample schedules, tips, and pros and cons of using each option. The guide also covers how to handle holidays, vacations, and school breaks as well as modifying plans to account for long-distance parenting and relocations." The Court plans to send a print version of this guide to all Ohio domestic relations and juvenile court judges, as well as all legal aid organizations. Text taken from Cleveland Law Library Weblog.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
The Ohio Supreme Court has proposed 23 standardized forms so litigants not represented by an attorney can meaningfully participate in many family law related proceedings in domestic relations and juvenile courts such as divorces, dissolutions, legal separations, and parenting plans.