Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
State and Local Government Law Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Abatement (1)
- Affirmative defenses (1)
- Certification (1)
- Certification requirement (1)
- Challenges (1)
-
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Civil asset forfeiture (1)
- Cleveland (1)
- Common law recoupment (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Counterclaim as an affirmative defense (1)
- Cross-demand statute (1)
- Foreclosure (1)
- Fourteenth amendment (1)
- Law enforcement (1)
- Mills Exception (1)
- Multi-claim actions (1)
- Multi-party actions (1)
- Non-certification (1)
- Objections (1)
- Ohio (1)
- Ohio Revised Code (ORC) (1)
- Ohio Revised Limited Liability Company Act (ORLLCA) (1)
- Ohio Rule 54(B) (1)
- Ohio Rule 8(c) (1)
- Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 54(B) (1)
- Personal property (1)
- Plea in abatement (1)
- Pleading the affirmative defense (1)
- Property rights (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in State and Local Government Law
Playing Monopoly With The Neighborhood: Impact Of Series Limited Liability Companies On Nuisance Abatement Actions And Housing Code Enforcement, Lauren Williams
Playing Monopoly With The Neighborhood: Impact Of Series Limited Liability Companies On Nuisance Abatement Actions And Housing Code Enforcement, Lauren Williams
Cleveland State Law Review
The City of Cleveland has been one of the most active cities in combating the negative effects of the 2008 financial crisis, utilizing nuisance abatement actions in combination with municipal programs aimed at assisting homeowners and renters. However, the Ohio Revised Limited Liability Company Act ("ORLLCA"), passed in 2021, may reverse the progress made in cities like Cleveland by enabling real estate investors to conceal assets in several series under the same limited liability company, resulting in rising vacancy rates and unstable communities. This will negatively impact the effectiveness of nuisance abatement actions and traditional housing code enforcement in curbing …
Legislative Reform Or Legalized Theft?: Why Civil Asset Forfeiture Must Be Outlawed In Ohio, Alex Haller
Legislative Reform Or Legalized Theft?: Why Civil Asset Forfeiture Must Be Outlawed In Ohio, Alex Haller
Cleveland State Law Review
Civil asset forfeiture is a legal method for law enforcement to deprive United States citizens of their personal property with little hope for its return. With varying degrees of legal protection at the state level, Ohio legislators must encourage national policy reform by outlawing civil asset forfeiture in Ohio. Ohio Revised Code Section 2981.05 should be amended to outlaw civil asset forfeiture by requiring a criminal conviction prior to allowing the seizure of an individual’s property. This Note proposes two plans of action that will restore Ohio resident’s property rights back to those originally afforded in the United States Constitution.
The Application And Misapplication Of Ohio Rule Of Civil Procedure 54(B), Diane S. Leung
The Application And Misapplication Of Ohio Rule Of Civil Procedure 54(B), Diane S. Leung
Cleveland State Law Review
The rules of civil procedure, seemingly straightforward, can be misinterpreted due to attorney inattentiveness. One rule which has suffered and still is suffering from misinterpretation and misapplication is Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 54(B), judgment upon multiple claims or involving multiple parties, the subject of this note. The following discussion, an analysis of Rule 54(B), will attempt to accomplish several tasks. First, the note will briefly describe the history, nature, and purpose of the rule. Secondly, it will analyze the major aspects and requirements of Rule 54(B). The analysis will emphasize the facets of the rule which have often been …
Ohio Rule 8(C) And Related Rules: Some Notes On The Pleading Of Affirmative Defenses, J. Patrick Browne
Ohio Rule 8(C) And Related Rules: Some Notes On The Pleading Of Affirmative Defenses, J. Patrick Browne
Cleveland State Law Review
The adoption of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure on July 1, 1970, ushered in the age of "Pleader's Lib" for the plaintiff's attorney. In code days, a pleader had to allege facts which showed a cause of action. Under the rules, however, a statement of claim' need only state the bare operative facts which show that the claimant has a claim for relief, and the complaint cannot be dismissed for failure to state such a claim unless it appears beyond doubt from the face of the pleading that the claimant can prove no set of facts entitling him or …