Law Commons^™

The Recent Amendment To Ohio Revised Code Section 2317.48, Kim M. Aumiller

Akron Law Review

Revised Code § 2317.48 was designed to enable a plaintiff to obtain information necessary to the drafting of a complaint. This discovery statute is one of the few statutes which was not repealed with the enactment of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure in 1970.

What one will not find, however, is the precise procedure to be followed in utilizing this discovery action. The procedural statutes which existed in the Revised Code were repealed upon enactment of the Civil Rules. Since then it has been difficult to know which procedural rules apply to Revised Code § 2317.48. Before the enactment …

Disentangling Michigan Court Rule 6.502(G)(2): The "New Evidence" Exception To The Ban On Successive Motions For Relief From Judgment Does Not Contain A Discoverability Requirement, Claire V. Madill

Michigan Law Review

Michigan courts are engaging in a costly interpretative mistake. Confused by the relationship between two distinct legal doctrines, Michigan courts are conflating laws in a manner that precludes convicted defendants from raising their constitutional claims in postconviction proceedings. In Michigan, a convicted defendant who wishes to collaterally attack her conviction must file a 6.500 motion. The Michigan Court Rules generally prohibit “second or subsequent” motions. Nonetheless, section 6.502(G)(2) permits a petitioner to avoid this successive motion ban if her claim relies on “new evidence that was not discovered” before her original postconviction motion. Misguided by the similarity between the language …