Law Commons^™

Buckeyes Against The Boycott: Why Ohio's Law Opposing Bds Is Protected Under The First Amendment, Hannah Kraus

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2016, Ohio became the fourteenth state to enact legislation denouncing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel. Codified as § 9.76 of the Ohio Revised Code, this legislation prohibits any state agency from contracting with a company that boycotts Israel during the contractual period. While the constitutionality of § 9.76 has not been challenged, anti-BDS statutes passed by other state legislatures have faced First Amendment challenges. This Note argues that § 9.76 of the Ohio Revised Code complies with the First Amendment under the government speech doctrine. In 1991, the Supreme Court applied the government speech doctrine in …

Appeal No. 0989: Concerned Ohio River Residents V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Issuance of Permits; Salt-1 Well, Salt-2 Well, Salt-3 Well (Powhatan Salt Company, LLC)

Appeal No. 0967: Florence C. Garver Living Trust V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 2018-303

Appeal No. 0978: Robert W. Fulton & Valorie S. Fulton V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 2019-115 (EAP Ohio, LLC; K Wallace West Unit)

Appeal No. 0975: Robert W. Fulton & Valorie S. Fulton V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 2019-81 (ESP Ohio, LLC; Barrett Unit)

Appeal No. 0987: Rosalie Christman V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 2020-11

Appeal No. 0977: Robert W. Fulton & Valorie S. Fulton V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 2019-114 (EAP Ohio, LLC; K Wallace East Unit)

Appeal No. 0983: Golden Eagle Resources Ii, Llc & Siltstone Resources, Llc V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 2020-87 (Gulfport Appalachia, LLCC; MEC Northwest Unit)

Appeal No. 0976: Energy Exploration & Development, Inc. V. Division Of Oil & Gas Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 2019-104

Appeal No. 0979: John F. Williams Oil Field Services, Inc. V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 2019-247

Appeal No. 0960: Faith Ranch & Farms Fund, Inc. V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Orders 2018-101 & 2018-108 (McBride East & Central Units; EAP Phioo. LLC)

Appeal No. 0980: C. David Snyder V. Divison Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 2019-343

Appeal No. 0982: Wheeling & Lake Eries Railway Company V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 2020-01 (Gulfport Appalliachia, LLC; Angelo Unit)

Appeal No. 0961: Faith Ranch & Farms Fund, Inc. V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Orders 2018-101 & 2018-108 (McBride East & Central Units; EAP Phioo. LLC)

Land Of The Free, If You Can Afford It: Reforming Mayor's Courts In Ohio, Lucia Lopez-Hisijos

Cleveland State Law Review

Unlike most states in America, Ohio has a unique system of punishing minor misdemeanors and ordinance violations through municipal institutions called mayor’s courts. In 2017, Ohio had 295 of these courts, and they heard nearly 300,000 cases. But these are not normal courts. Ohio’s mayor’s courts do not conduct ability to pay hearings and can jail defendants who fail to pay court fines. With the author’s original research into Ohio’s mayor’s courts, this Note argues that these institutions can function like modern-day debtor’s prisons and violate indigent defendants’ constitutional right to Due Process. Ultimately, this Note proposes a model bill …

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A Guideline To Remedy Ohio's Sentencing Disparities For White-Collar Criminal Defendants, Joelle Livorse

Cleveland State Law Review

Over the past few decades, white-collar crimes have significantly increased across the country, especially in Ohio. However, Ohio’s judges are ill-equipped to handle the influx of cases. Unlike federal judges who are guided by the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Ohio’s judges have significantly more sentencing discretion because the Ohio legislature provides minimal guidance for these crimes. As a result, Ohio’s white-collar criminal defendants are experiencing dramatic sentencing variations. To solve this problem, Ohio should look to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and neighboring states to adopt and create an innovative sentencing model tailored to white-collar crime. Unlike the federal …

Appeal No. 0951: Jeffrey Paczewski V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 2017-452 (Peters Unit; Antero Resources Corporation)

Appendix B: Ohio Attorney General Facial Recognition Task Force Proposal On Monitoring, Auditing, Enforcement And Transparency, Brian E. Ray, Dennis Hirsch

Law Faculty Reports and Comments

Policy controls that govern agency activity generally contain at least two components: (1) a substantive policy; and (2) a governance structure for ensuring implementation of and compliance with that policy. Effective controls require both. This proposal focuses on the second component, the governance structure. Specifically, it addresses routine monitoring, annual audits, enforcement of the AG’s policies that govern the facial recognition system, and public transparency. Established facial recognition policies, including those that the Task Force has looked to as models, recognize the importance of establishing such a governance structure.

We have reviewed existing federal and state policy templates documents in …