retroactivity

Retroactivity Provision Violated by Application of Construction Statute of Repose

/

Oaktree Condominium Association v. Hallmark Building Company,  2014-Ohio-1937.    Construction statute of repose, codified in R.C. 2305.131,is unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff who filed a claim for damages after the statute’s effective date but plaintiff’s claim arose before the effective date.   Application of the statute of repose to bar plaintiff’s lawsuit violates the Ohio Constitution, Article […]

Retroactivity Provision Violated by Application of Construction Statute of Repose 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 »

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 »

Statute Requiring Preserving Biological Evidence in Possession of Government at Effective Date of Statute did not invoke Retroactivity Clause

/

State v  Roberts, 2012 -Ohio- 5684, 12/6/12, The obligation to preserve and catalog criminal-offense-related biological evidence imposed upon certain government entities by R.C. 2933.82 applies to evidence in the possession of those entities at the time of the statute’s effective date.  Applying the statute to evidence in possession of the government does not amount to

Statute Requiring Preserving Biological Evidence in Possession of Government at Effective Date of Statute did not invoke Retroactivity Clause Read Post »

Ohio Supreme Court Decisions re. Retroactivity and Adam Walsh Act

/

In re Bruce S., 2012-Ohio-5696 Senate Bill 10’s (Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act) classification, registration, and community-notification provisions cannot be constitutionally applied to a sex offender who committed his sex offense between July 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, the last day before January 1, 2008, the effective date of S.B 10’s classification, registration, and community-notification

Ohio Supreme Court Decisions re. Retroactivity and Adam Walsh Act Read Post »

Statute Allowing Defendants to be Resentenced to Death did not Violate Retroactivity Provisions

/

Latest Ohio Supreme Court case: State v. Maxwell D. White, (June 14, 2012), 2012-Ohio-2583, Case No. 2009-1661. A 2005 law, allowing death penalty defendants whose sentence was overturned to be resentenced to death, does not violate the Ohio Constitution’s retroactivity provisions when applied to defendants sentenced to death on or before March 23, 2005.   

Statute Allowing Defendants to be Resentenced to Death did not Violate Retroactivity Provisions Read Post »

Scroll to Top