ACLU Lawsuit Says Abortion Amendments to Budget Bill Violate One Subject Rule

/

The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Preterm-Cleveland, Inc., asserting that the abortion amendments added to Ohio’s budget bill, H.B. 59,  violate the one subject rule.  see Canton Repository article . [youtube q0QjfEv55MA] One of the amendments in question bans public hospitals from making transfer agreements with abortion clinics. Another requires clinics to follow a government […]

ACLU Lawsuit Says Abortion Amendments to Budget Bill Violate One Subject Rule Read Post »

If Claim Arises Before Effective Date of Construction Statute of Repose, Does Application of Statute Violate Retroactivity Provision?

/

Oaktree Condominium Association v. Hallmark Building Company, 2012-1722.  Docket  Oral argument, Oct. 9, 2013.  Whether Ohio’s construction statute of repose, codified in R.C. 2305.131, bars plaintiff from pursuing a substantive, vested right in violation of the Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 28 (retroactivity provision) when the plaintiff filed a claim for damages after the statute’s

If Claim Arises Before Effective Date of Construction Statute of Repose, Does Application of Statute Violate Retroactivity Provision? Read Post »

Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission Committee Meetings on 10/10/13

/

9:00 a.m. Constitutional Revisions & Updating Committee – Statehouse Room 115 Judicial Branch and the Administration of Justice – Statehouse Room 311 12:30 p.m. Constitutional Revisions & Updating Committee – Statehouse Room 113 Bill of Rights & Voting- Statehouse Room 115 Legislative Branch and Executive Branch Committee-Statehouse Room 114 3:00 p.m.

Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission Committee Meetings on 10/10/13 Read Post »

Court Interprets Retroactivity Provision: Law re. Calculating Prejudgment Interest Applies to Claims Filed After Effective Date, Even if Action Accrued Before Effective Date

/

The Ohio Supreme Court applied the Ohio Constitution’s retroactivity provision, Article II, Section 28, Ohio Constitution, to determine whether an amendment to the prejudgment interest statute in 2004 applied to a cause of action accruing in 2002, filed and dismissed without prejudice in 2003, and then refiled in 2008.  The court held that, “Because the

Court Interprets Retroactivity Provision: Law re. Calculating Prejudgment Interest Applies to Claims Filed After Effective Date, Even if Action Accrued Before Effective Date Read Post »

OCMC Meeting Tomorrow re. Executive Director

/

Committee:         Organization and Administration Committee Subcommittee on Executive Director Hiring Date:                         Tuesday, October 1, 2013 Time:                        9:30am Room:                      Room 1576, Vern Riffe Center, 77 South High Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215   The subcommittee will meet to discuss the Executive Director applicants with Commission Consultant, Steve Steinglass and discuss the process for

OCMC Meeting Tomorrow re. Executive Director Read Post »

1851 Center Files Federal Suit re. Ohio Statute Restricting Petition Drives

/

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law filed a complaint in the Southern District of Ohio, United States District Court, asserting that Senate Bill 47 violates the First Amendment, as well as the Ohio Constitution.  Senate Bill 47 banned collecting signatures while the Secretary of State reviews the initial petition and prohibits the collection of signatures

1851 Center Files Federal Suit re. Ohio Statute Restricting Petition Drives Read Post »

Double Jeopardy Barred Retrial of Defendant When Evidence Insufficient Due to Incorrect Taking of Judicial Notice

/

Generally, if a conviction is reversed because of an error at trial, a retrial does not violate double jeopardy.  If a conviction is reversed because of insufficient evidence, a retrial violates double jeopardy (Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 10).  What if the trial court erroneously took judicial notice of a fact necessary to prove the

Double Jeopardy Barred Retrial of Defendant When Evidence Insufficient Due to Incorrect Taking of Judicial Notice Read Post »

Does Sole Authority of Ohio Department of Natural Resources to Regulate Oil and Gas Drilling Violate Home Rule?

/

The Ohio Supreme Court will decide whether 2004 Ohio HB 278, which preempts municipalities and other local governments from regulating oil and gas drilling, violates the Ohio Constitution’s Home Rule provision, Ohio Constitution Article XVIII, Section 7.        H.B. 278 declared that the Division of Mineral Resources Management in the Department of Natural Resources has

Does Sole Authority of Ohio Department of Natural Resources to Regulate Oil and Gas Drilling Violate Home Rule? Read Post »

More Lawsuits Challenge Constitutionality of Red Light Camera Appeal Procedures

/

Douglas E. Priest and Wynette J. McNutt each filed lawsuits in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court  challenging the constitutionality of red light camera procedures.  The arguments in these suits are similar to Bradley Walker’s suit, which was recently appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court (see our prior post).  The suits argue that ticket appeals to

More Lawsuits Challenge Constitutionality of Red Light Camera Appeal Procedures Read Post »

OCMC Committee Meeting Announcment

/

Committee:             Organization and Administration Committee – Subcommittee on Executive Director Hiring Date:                         Tuesday, September 17, 2013 Time:                          1:30pm Room:                        Statehouse Room 115, Columbus, Ohio 43215   The subcommittee will meet to discuss the Executive Director applications (Note that this blog is not written by the Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission.  Please see

OCMC Committee Meeting Announcment Read Post »

Scroll to Top