Thursday, December 19, 2013

OH Driving Under the Influence Law -- Baldwin's Ohio Handbook Series (2013-2014)

New features and recent developments in this edition include:

  • A new sample request for notice of intention to use evidence and discovery demand.  See section 5:14

  • Discussion of Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013), holding that the natural metabolization of blood alcohol in a defendant's bloodstream does not present a per se exigency justifying an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing. See section 6:3

  • A discussion of Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) training for police officers acting as expert witnesses.  See section 13:18

Ohio Landlord Tenant Law - Baldwin's Handbook Series (2013-2014)

Recent developments in this edition include:

  • Coverage of Parker v. Salvation Army, 2012-Ohio-2069, 971 N.E. 2d 995 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2012), in which the court determined that the Salvation Army's provision of temporary housing to homeless persons was an "emergency shelter facility" exempt from the Ohio Landlord Tenant Act provisions prohibiting self-help eviction. See section 13:1

  • What remedy does a homeowner have when tenants in a nearby apartment building play loud music and host frequent loud parties?  See section 5:9

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Ohio Appellate Practice - Baldwin's OH Handbook (2013-2014)

New features and developments in the 2013 - 2014 edition include:

  • A new section (2:3) on special rules in magistrate cases for requirements of form and clarity of the final order

  • Expanded discussions of mootness and ripeness on appeal (Section 7:2), preserving error in magistrate cases (section 7:5), and appeals to civil-service commissions (section 9:58)

  • A new section (9:66) on appeals to the Oil and Gas Commission

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Local Government Law -- Township (2013-2014)

New features and recent developments include:

Under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3), sidewalks are not considered public roads so townships are  immune to liability if the injury occurs on a sidewalk.  See Wilson v. Cleveland, 2012-Ohio-4289, 979 N.E.2d 356 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2012), discussed in Section 7:19.

The action of a board of zoning appeals in reviewing an application for conditional use is a quasi-judicial function and therefore the Sunshine Laws do not apply to executive session deliberations on such applications.  Se In re Application for Additional Use of Property v. Allen Twp. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2013-Ohio-722, 2013 WL 785060 (Ohio Ct. App / 6th Dist. Ottawa County 2013), discussed in Section 30:25.

New section concerning removal of an underground storage tank system.  See section 38:14.50.

New section discussing transfer of ownership of a cemetery under R.C. 517.271.  See section 35:16.

Merrick-Rippner Probate Law (2013-2014)

New features and recent developments in this update include:

  • A discussion of cases in which Ohio courts have ruled on whether a beneficiary under a will can legitimately seek clarification of a will's provisions, or request that the court review an executor's conduct, without violating and triggering an in terrorem clause.  See section 30:30

  • Coverage of Erwin v. Wanda E. Wise Revocable Trust, 2013-Ohio-952, 2013 WL 1091229 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. Scioto County 2013), in which the court ruled as to whether, in an action to enforce an oral agreement to make a devise of real estate by will, the doctrine of part performance renders inoperative the statute requiring that an agreement to make a will or to make a devise or bequest by will be in writing.

  • Discussion of My Father's House No. 1 v. McCardle, 2013-Ohio-420, 986 N.E.2d 1081 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. Marion County 2013), in which the court ruled on the standing of a widow to challenge her deceased husband's transfer of real property in view of her execution of an antenuptial agreement permitting the husband to transfer his real property to whomever he chose.  See Section 39:4

  • A model complaint for breach of fiduciary duty and interference with expectancy of inheritance.  See section 56:13.10.

Friday, November 15, 2013

Law of the Internet (Wolters Kluwer)

The 2014-1 supplement to Law of the Internet includes these recent developments:

  • Jurisdictional issues as they pertain to doing business in cyber space continue to play out in circuits around the country. The cases of uBid, Inc. v. GoDaddy Group, Inc. and Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC are examined.  See section 3.03[A]

  • The e-book pricing case has come to some resolution after Apple refused to settle.  In 2013 Judge Denise Cole ruled Against Apple, determining that the company had improperly colluded with book publishers to set e-book prices artificially high in an effort to undermine its competitor, Amazon.  See section 4.02.

  • On March 28, 2013, the Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of New York's affiliate sales tax statute, holding that Amazon and Overstock had established physical presence in the state through their affiliates.  See section 15.06[C][1]

  • In Rana v. Google Australia Pty Ltd., a court held that Google Inc. (the American parent company of Google Australia) could be held liable for defamation for statements published on a Web site which Google hosted and to which it linked.  See section 11.04[B]

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Online Catalog of Library Holdings Now Available

The Wayne County Law Library Online Catalog is now available.  This catalog of the print collection may be searched by author, title, subject or keyword.   The home page also links to a list of

  • current subscriptions
  • online resources from Westlaw
  • online resources from Lexis

Friday, July 19, 2013

Searches & Seizures, Arrests and Confessions, 2d (West)

New features and recent developments in the 2013 release (#29) include:

  • Bailey v. U.S. where the Supreme Court held that the Summers rule, which allows police officers executing a search warrant to detain the occupants of the premises while a search is conducted, is confined to those who are present in the immediate vicinity of the premises when the search is being conducted, and does not extend to those who have left the scene. (see Section 6:17)

  • Florida v. Jardines, in which the Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers' use of drug-sniffing dog on front porch of home, to investigate an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown in the home, was a trespassory invasion of the curtilage which constituted a "search" for Forth Amendment purposes. (see Section 8:17)

  • Florida v. Harris where the Supreme Court unanimously held that under the standard for determining probable cause for a search, the showing of the reliability of a drug-detection dog's alert does not require an exhaustive set of records, including a log the the dog's field  performance, and instead, the dog's certification by a bona fide organization after testing in a controlled setting allows a court to presume, subject to any conflicting evidence offered, that the dog's alert provided probable cause to search. (see section 8:29)

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Child Custody Practice and Procedure, 2013 Ed.

New features and recent developments in this 2013 edition include:

  • New and updated cases and references in all chapters, including the Supreme Court's recent Hague Abduction Convention decision in Chafin v. Chafin (Section 3:6)
  • Revised Section 3:28 discussing the registration of child custody orders under UCCJEA
  • Fully updated Appendix 4A regarding child custody criteria in state statutes

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Ohio Planning and Zoning Law 2013 Ed. (Baldwin's Ohio Handbook Series)

New features and recent developments in the 2013 edition include:

  • Rumple Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Colerain Township, 134 Ohio St. 3d 93, 2012-Ohio-3914, 980 N.E. 2d 952 (2012), in which the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a private sanitary landfill is not a public utility and, therefore, cannot be exempt from township zoning when there is "no public regulation or oversight of its rates and charges, no statutory requirement that all solid waste devivered to the landfill be accepted for disposal, and no right of the public to demand and receive its services, " See Section 6:33.
  • Clifton v. Bannchester, 131 Ohio St. 3d 287, 2012-Ohio-780, 964 N.E. 2d 414 (2012), and Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St. 3d 55, 2012-Ohio-3897, 975 N.E. 2d 977 (2012), two cases in which the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the standing of nonresident landowners to allege a taking of land or a violation of due process or equal protecytion. See section 14:6.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Ohio Trial Practice 2013 Ed. (Baldwin's Ohio Handbook Series)

New features and recent developments in this 2013 edition include:

  • Does the attorney-client relationship end when the client hires a replacement lawyer and a lawyer to pursue a malpractice claim against the allegedly negligent lawyer, even thought the client fails to fire that lawyer? See Ruf v. Belfance, 2013-Ohio-160, 2013 WL 243992, para. 14 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. Summit County 2013), discussed in Section 1:8
  • Should a defendant be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing when the trial court had failed to tell him that he was subject to a mandatory sentence? See State v. Dunham, 2012-Ohio-2957, para. 17, 2012 WL 2479542, (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. Richland County 2012), discussed in Section 4:24
  • Does the attorney-client privilege extend to an attorney's communications with a corporate client's corporate parents or affiliates.? See MA Equip. Leasing I, L.L.C. v. Tilton, 2012-Ohio-4668, N.E. 2d 1072 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. Franklin County 2012), appeal not allowed, 2013-Ohio-553(Ohio 2013), discussed in Section 19:7

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Ohio Arrest, Search and Seizure 2013 Ed. (Baldwin's Handbook Series)

Recent developments covered in the 2013 edition include:

  • 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.

Friday, May 24, 2013

Baldwin's Ohio Employment Practices Law

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

Searches & Seizures, Arrests and Confessions, 2d

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)