Latest 3 Cases: State ex rel. Kendrick v. Parker (Criminal Law), State ex rel. Steiner v. Rinfret (Criminal Law), Litchfield Township Board of ...

Believe All Women or Support Joe Biden?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on recent sexual assault allegations against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Colb argues that if the only choices for President are Donald Trump and Joe Biden, the sexual assault allegation against the latter will take second fiddle to the need to defeat the former and defends this perspective as not manifesting hypocrisy or indifference to sexual assault or other intimate violence.

Read More

State ex rel. Kendrick v. Parker

Citation: 2020-Ohio-1509

Opinion Date: April 21, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's request for a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus against Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge E. Gerald Parker Jr., holding that the court of appeals correctly determined that Appellant's claim was barred by res judicata. Appellant sought a petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandamus against Judge Erik Blaine, the successor to the judge who sentenced Appellant, alleging that the sentencing court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to sentence him. Judge Parker, who had succeeded Judge Blaine, subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals granted summary judgment for Judge Parker, concluding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that the sentencing court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction or that he lacked an adequate remedy at law and that res judicata barred Appellant's claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claim was barred by res judicata.

State ex rel. Steiner v. Rinfret

Citation: 2020-Ohio-1510

Opinion Date: April 21, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus against Holmes County Court of Common Pleas Judge Robert D. Rinfret, holding that the court of appeals correctly determined that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Appellant, who was serving consecutive prison terms for five convictions, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus arguing that Judge Rinfret improperly sentenced him to a prison term of nine years for his attempted rape conviction instead of the maximum term of eleven years. The court of appeals dismissed the petition, determining that Appellant had failed to file a mandatory affidavit of his prior civil actions and had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that relief in mandamus was not available because Petitioner had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.

Litchfield Township Board of Trustees v. Forever Blueberry Barn, LLC

Citation: 2020-Ohio-1508

Opinion Date: April 21, 2020

Judge: Stewart

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court determining that Defendant's use of its barn on property it owned in Litchfield Township was utilized primarily for the production of wine made from grapes and for the sale of wine produced therein in order for the use of the barn to be exempt from zoning regulation pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 519.212(A), holding that the trial court did not err. Defendant owned a barn on land designated as residential. The Litchfield Township Board of Trustees sought to enjoin Defendant from using its land for weddings and other social gatherings. On remand, the trial court determined that the barn met the "vinting and selling wine" exemption under section 519.21(A). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly applied the primary-use test under section 519.21(A) in determining that the primary use of the barn was for vinting and selling wine.