Racism, Rage, and Raw Political Power: Revisiting the Motivations of Trump’s Supporters

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan develops his argument that the only plausible reasons Republicans continue to support President Trump are “bigotry and raw political power.” In this follow-up column, Buchanan explores these explanations a bit further, drawing in part from incensed reader responses to his previous column.

Read More

State ex rel. Neal v. Mandros

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4866

Opinion Date: October 14, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals sua sponte dismissing Appellant's complaint seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Lucas County Court of Common Pleas Judge Dean Mandros to grant him judicial release from prison, holding that Appellant failed to state a valid claim for a writ of mandamus. Appellant, an inmate, filed a motion for judicial release under Ohio Rev. Code 2929.20(C)(2). Judge Mandros denied the motion. Appellant subsequently filed this mandamus action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Mandros to grant judicial release. The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the proper writ for Appellant's purpose was a writ of habeas corpus.

State ex rel. New Wen, Inc. v. Marchbanks

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4865

Opinion Date: October 14, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court denied Relator's application for an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs in this mandamus action, holding that attorney fees were not available. The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus to compel the Ohio Department of Transportation and its director (ODOT) to conduct appropriation proceedings to determine the appropriate amount of compensation it should pay to New Wen, Inc., whose Wendy's restaurant was located at an intersection that ODOT closed. Thereafter, New Wen filed an application for attorney fees and other costs. ODOT opposed the application. The Supreme Court denied the application, holding that attorney fees were not available in this type of action.