Source: http://ohiolawinfo.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_archive.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:00:52+00:00

Document:
IT IS ORDERED by the court that a writ of habeas corpus is granted.
prison forthwith, and that petitioner be released from postrelease control.
COMMISSION v. PARROTT, JUDGE, ET AL.
issued to compel judge to appoint member of commission.
on or before January 5, 2004.
The Supreme Court of Ohio will accept public comments until Feb. 8, 2006, on regulations for the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. Comments on the regulations should be submitted in writing to Secretary of the Board D. Allan Asbury, Supreme Court of Ohio, 7th Floor, 65 S. Front St., Columbus, OH 43215, no later than Feb. 8, 2006. Please include your full name and mailing address in any comments submitted by email. Full text of the regs can be found here.
of Professional Conduct (DR 2-101) dealing with direct mail solicitation.
2005-1638. Strongsville Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision.
Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2003-V-1617 and 2003-V-686.
Law have been published for public comment.
Conduct have been published for public comment.
"Does a city act unlawfully when it commissions an urban renewal study of a residential area previously targeted by a private developer, classifies the area as ‘deteriorating,' and subsequently uses its eminent domain powers to take (with compensation) the property of owners unwilling to vacate the targeted area to make way for private redevelopment?"
"The appellants urge the Court not to be swayed in their judgment of this case by the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London . While a 5-4 majority of the Kelo court held that encouraging private business development can be a legitimate “public purpose” supporting eminent domain actions by a city, Horney and the Gambles point to a number of cases in which this Court has interpreted the Ohio Constitution to provide greater protection for individual rights than the U.S. Supreme Court has found under the federal constitution."
Click here for a link to archived oral argument audio for the case.
Click here for the text of the appellate decision.
The United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that it had no jurisdiction in the matter concerning ex-public defender Beth Lewis' refusal to testify as to what her now-deceased client had told her concerning the disappearance of a Kettering, Ohio girl, Erica Baker, in 1999. The court threw the case back to state court, which had previously ruled that Lewis must testify.
not confer federal jurisdiction for such purposes."
If you are not familiar with the case, the 6th Circuit opinion does a pretty good job with the fact scenario.
HB 466 ELEVATOR MECHANICS (McGregor, J.) To require the superintendent of industrial compliance to regulate elevator mechanics and elevator contractors, to create the Elevator Safety Advisory Committee, and to make changes to the laws governing elevator servicing and inspections. Am. & En. 3781.19, 4105.01, 4105.011, 4105.012, 4105.02, 4105.05, 4105.10, 4105.12, 4105.13, 4105.15, 4105.16, 4105.17, 4105.022, 4105.023, 4105.99, and 4121.13.
HB 467 BUILDING ENERGY STANDARDS (Hughes) To require state agencies, state institutions of higher education, school districts, and community schools to comply with certain energy and environmentally efficient building standards, and to require the Director of Development to adopt those standards by rule. En. 153.03, 1551.17, 3313.377, & 3314.042.
2004-1145. Jaylin Investments, Inc. v. Moreland Hills, 2006-Ohio-4.
Cuyahoga App. No. 82739, 157 Ohio App.3d 277, 2004-Ohio-2689. Judgment affirmed.
Pfeifer and O'Donnell, JJ., dissent.
Add'l Info: Real property – Zoning – Restriction of residential lot size to two-acre minimum – Constitutionality of restriction as applied to deny proposed use of half-acre lots in residential subdivision – Test is whether owner has demonstrated beyond fair debate that restriction, as applied to proposed use, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and without substantial relation to public health, safety, and welfare.
2005-0447. State ex rel. Downs v. Panioto, 2006-Ohio-8.
Hamilton App. No. C-040784, 2005-Ohio-778. Judgment reversed.
Summary: Prohibition—Alternative writ defined—Final orders—Lack of jurisdiction over incompetent party alleged—Service of process on incompetent—Capacity of incompetent to sue for divorce—Adequate remedy in ordinary course of law—Writ denied.
2005-0750. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ross, 2006-Ohio-5.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 03-98. Leo Patrick Ross, Attorney Registration No. 0031061, is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, stayed on conditions.
Summary: Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Failure to inform client of lack of liability insurance—Conflict of interest—Representation of clients allegedly involved in criminal activity together—Six-month stayed suspension.
2005-1115. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Winkfield, 2006-Ohio-6.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 02-30. Lawrence Edward Winkfield, Attorney Registration No. 0034254, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
Add'l Info: Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Practicing law while license is under suspension—Conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, or misrepresentation—Intentionally damaging or prejudicing a client—Failure to deliver funds promptly to client—Failure to protect client’s interests before withdrawing from representation—Failure to refund unearned fees upon withdrawal—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Intentional failure to complete contract of professional employment—Failure to promptly return client’s property—Failure to cooperate in disciplinary proceedings—Illegal conduct involving moral turpitude—Illegal discrimination—Accepting employment with risk of conflict of interest—Charging excessive fees—Misappropriation from trust account—Mental illness as mitigating—Indefinite suspension.
2005-1251. State ex rel. Boylen v. Harmon, 2006-Ohio-7.
Stark App. No. 2005CA00104. Judgment affirmed.
Summary: R.C. 2935.10 governs procedure for affidavits filed under R.C. 2935.09 — No conflict between R.C. 2935.10 and Crim.R. 4(A) in this case.
2005-2418. State ex rel. Hawkes v. Indus. Comm.
Franklin App. No. 05AP-47, 2005-Ohio-5995.
2005-1812. State ex rel. Cliff v. Auburndale Co.
Franklin App. No. 03AP-365, 2005-Ohio-3984.
2005-1865. State ex rel. Donley v. Kessler.
release regarding the Commercial Activity Tax (CAT).
constitutes a taxable gross receipt for purposes of the CAT.
The release is posted on ODT's Web site, tax.ohio.gov.
2005-2051. State ex rel. Gray v. Bailey.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.