Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Cleveland State University

Constitutional Law

Cleveland State Law Review

Ohio Supreme Court

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Home Rule In Ohio: General Laws, Conflicts, And The Failure Of The Courts To Protect The Ohio Constitution, Matthew Mahoney Jan 2019

Home Rule In Ohio: General Laws, Conflicts, And The Failure Of The Courts To Protect The Ohio Constitution, Matthew Mahoney

Cleveland State Law Review

The Home Rule Amendment to Ohio’s Constitution vest with municipalities the power to legislate on issues of most concern to that locality. Ideally, the concept of home rule creates shared powers between the state and the municipality. However, in Ohio, such is not the case. Instead, the state has almost complete control despite the home rule constitutional amendment. Although home rule is complicated historically and practically with many working parts between the legislature and the municipality, what is clear is that the courts play a substantial role in the doctrine’s application. The court’s role is difficulty considering the competing interests, …


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 Dec 2017

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 …


Writing Checks Or Righting Wrongs: Election Funding And The Tort Decisions Of The Ohio Supreme Court, James T. O'Reilly Jan 2004

Writing Checks Or Righting Wrongs: Election Funding And The Tort Decisions Of The Ohio Supreme Court, James T. O'Reilly

Cleveland State Law Review

This paper will try to address the court's present and future course in tort law, with particular focus on products liability, malpractice, and employer tort liability. These are the most intriguing segments of modern tort law in Ohio. The paper concludes that stare decisis and the precedential accretion of the common law no longer seem to matter to the Ohio Supreme Court. Instead, the cacophony of a fractured court has imperiled predictability and imperiled the court's national reputation. Instead, the topic of a prospective justice's view of the tort system is unfortunately an early and frequent conversation in recruitment, selection, …


State V. Roberts: A Persuasive But Unsupported Position, Robert A. Boyd Jan 1978

State V. Roberts: A Persuasive But Unsupported Position, Robert A. Boyd

Cleveland State Law Review

The Ohio Supreme Court recently held in State v. Roberts that when a witness is unavailable at the trial of a criminal defendant, the state may not introduce the witness' preliminary hearing testimony into evidence unless he had been cross-examined at the preliminary hearing. The court found that the defendant, Roberts, had been denied his right to confront an adverse witness when the trial court admitted the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness who was not present at trial, and held that mere opportunity to cross-examine at a preliminary hearing, unexercised, did not satisfy the demands of the Confrontation Clause …