Law Commons^™

Ohio's Modern Courts Amendment Must Be Amended: Why And How, Richard S. Walinski, Mark D. Wagoner Jr.

Cleveland State Law Review

A 1968 amendment to the Ohio Constitution granted the Supreme Court of Ohio the authority to promulgate “rules governing practice and procedure” for Ohio courts. The amendment also provided that “[a]ll laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect” and that no rule may “abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.”

Although the amendment was explicit about automatic repeal of existing laws, it says nothing about whether the General Assembly may legislate on a procedural matter after a court rule takes effect. That silence has caused enduring confusion. …

How Big Money Ruined Public Life In Wisconsin, Lynn Adelman

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article discusses how Wisconsin fell from grace. Once a model good government state that pioneered many democracy-enhancing laws, in a very short time, Wisconsin became a state where special interest money, most of which is undisclosed, dominates politics. This Article identifies several factors as being critical to Wisconsin’s descent. These include the state’s failure to nurture and build on the campaign finance reforms enacted in the 1970s and both the state’s and the United States Supreme Court’s failure to adequately regulate sham issue ads. As evidence of Wisconsin’s diminished status, this Article describes how several of the state’s most …

Stuck In Ohio's Legal Limbo, How Many Mistrials Are Too Many Mistrials?: Exploring New Factors That Help A Trial Judge In Ohio Know Whether To Exercise Her Authority To Dismiss An Indictment With Prejudice, Especially Following Repeated Hung Juries, Samantha M. Cira

Cleveland State Law Review

Multiple mistrials following validly-prosecuted trials are becoming an increasingly harsh reality in today’s criminal justice system. Currently, the Ohio Supreme Court has not provided any guidelines to help its trial judges know when to make the crucial decision to dismiss an indictment with prejudice following a string of properly-declared mistrials, especially due to repeated hung juries. Despite multiple mistrials that continue to result in no conviction, criminal defendants often languish behind bars, suffering detrimental psychological harm and a loss of personal freedom as they remain in “legal limbo” waiting to retry their case. Furthermore, continuously retrying defendants cuts against fundamental …

The "P" Word: Ohio Should Adopt The Uniform Premarital Agreements Act To Achieve Consistency And Uniformity In The Treatment Of Prenuptial Agreements, Jenna Christine Colucci

Cleveland State Law Review

Throughout the United States, courts have used inconsistent standards for the interpretation of prenuptial agreements. Under Ohio jurisprudence, courts are concerned with protecting the vulnerable spouse or the economically disadvantaged party. This legal standard acknowledges the unique relationship of the parties to the contract and will generally review the procedural and substantive components of the prenuptial agreement. Conversely, other courts are weary of interfering with the contractual freedom of the parties and will only invalidate a prenuptial agreement upon a showing of fraud, duress, or misrepresentation. The Uniform Premarital Agreement Act was drafted in 1983 to address the inconsistent treatment …

Amicus Curiae Brief Of Equality Ohio In Support Of Intervenor Urging Reversal, Doron M. Kalir, Kenneth J. Kowalski

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

Title VII’s plain language bars discharge of “any individual”—whether transgender or not—“because of such individual’s . . . sex.” It applies whenever employers take gender into account in making employment decisions. It is undisputed that the employer in this case based his decision to terminate Ms. Stephens solely on sex-based considerations. To be sure, he could have terminated Ms. Stephens for a wide array of reasons—tardiness, failure to perform, disciplinary issues—or for no reason at all. Under those circumstances, such termination—even of a transgender person—would not be “because of such individual’s sex.” But that is not the case here. Here, …